Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Minerals (Ownership)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will seek to reform the existing law governing the ownership of minerals in order to ensure that all minerals are worked in the public interest.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): While the Government have no plans to reform the existing law governing the ownership of minerals, the Land Commission which we propose to set up will both ensure that land is made available for development, which could include mineral development, when the public interest requires and that the public derives the benefit from increasing land values which arise from development.

Mr. Hamilton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that Answer does not go far enough? Has his attention been drawn to an article in the Town and Country Planning Magazine of May this year in which it was suggested that we might adopt the United States practice of having the minerals State-owned and leased to operators, in which case they could be used in the public interest instead of in the private interest? Will my right hon. Friend take account of all the suggestions that were made in that article?

Mr. Ross: I read the article with great interest and certainly noted the suggestions that were put down. It was, I think, a reprint of a lecture which was given on the subject by an expert and it suggested that we should follow the United States pattern concerning the ownership of

minerals. The Government are not prepared to go as far as that at the present time.

Sir J. Gilmour: Can the Secretary of State say what mineral enterprises in this country are paying dividends?

Mr. Ross: That is not part of this Question.

Highlands (Land Prices)

Mr. Buchan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will now introduce legislation to enable him to deal with the present inflated prices of land in the Highlands in areas where development has taken place because of public action and expenditure.

Mr. Ross: The Bill to set up a Land Commission, which the Government propose to introduce as soon as possible, is intended to deal with this situation.

Mr. Buchan: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the situation in some parts of the Highlands—for example, at Aviemore or Fort William—where, because of the great expenditure of public money, private speculators are able to reap large harvests? Figures of several thousand £s per acres have been mentioned in each of these two districts.

Mr. Ross: I am aware and I am very disappointed that this should take place. I do not think that it should be allowed to go on without the State itself appreciating that certain landowners who have had neither risk nor interest in respect of these developments are reaping such rich rewards.

Mr. Carmichael: Has not the stage been reached in Scotland when it would be appropriate to start a new Domesday Book to find exactly who owns the land? I know that this question has come up before, but would it not be well worth while doing it again?

Mr. Ross: It may well be worth doing it again, but it is not covered by Question No. 3.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Is the Secretary of State definitely saying that it is the Government's intention that the Land Commission Bill will deal with the sort of gross exploitation which, as his hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West


(Mr. Buchan) has rightly said, is taking place in the Lochaber area in particular?

Mr. Ross: We certainly hope that it will help to deal with this problem, but I ask the hon. Member to await the publication of the Bill for details.

Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892

Mr. Doig: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to rescind Section 381 of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, which makes it illegal to park a car anywhere.

Mr. Ross: No, Sir.

Mr. Doig: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many burghs in Scotland are spending considerable sums of the taxpayers' money in erecting "No Waiting" signs and that the absence of these signs elsewhere leaves motorists to imagine that they are allowed to park when these signs are not present? Will my right hon. Friend, therefore, consider making the law quite clear to these motorists, who are normally law-abiding citizens, perhaps by his Department stopping local authorities from wasting money on putting up superfluous signs and encouraging them instead to put up signs where waiting is permitted?

Mr. Ross: This is a rather difficult problem. It may be a misleading impression that many motorists have that if no sign is displayed they can wait with impunity. This simply is not the case. My hon. Friend could equally argue that, because there are parking signs in certain towns, motorists cannot park anywhere else. If we took my hon. Friend's advice concerning this power that stems from the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892, we would need to put up far more signs and yet we still would not get the full position clear. The trouble, I think, is that local people tend to know where they can park their cars and that there may be difficulty for visitors who go into a town. If you want to know the fine, ask a policeman.

Mr. G. Campbell: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us the approximate figure for the number of motor cars in Scotland in 1892?

Mr. Ross: We were very far-seeing in Scotland in 1892, because Section 381(10)

provides that any person who in any street
Causes any cart or carriage, with or without horses, or any beast of draught or burden, to stand longer than is necessary
etc. So the motor car was amply covered.

Fish Farming (Research)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the developments and improvements in fish farming undertaken by the White Fish Authority in co-operation with the University of Strathclyde directed towards raising the temperature in the chosen experimental Scottish lochs and towards feeding the embryo fish in order to increase their size and vitamin content; and what assistance the Government is giving to these improvements and developments.

Mr. Ross: I am aware of the work which is being carried out by the White Fish Authority in co-operation with the University of Strathclyde. This is part of the Authority's research and development programme, for which it receives a grant of 50 per cent. from the Government. The initial work on the artificial rearing of sea fish was carried out by scientists of the fisheries departments who are continuing these studies and collaborating with the White Fish Authority and others to determine the environmental conditions necessary for fish farming.

Mr. Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the White Fish Authority is to be congratulated upon its initiative in this matter, especially having regard to the invidious policy which has been carried out over many years in favour of agriculture as contrasted with—I do not say "at the expense of"—the fishing industry? Will my right hon. Friend issue a White Paper indicating what his constructive policy is for the benefit of the fishing industry in order to prevent Britain from suffering from a fish famine?

Mr. Ross: I hope that the Answer that I have just given on the aspect of fishing about which my hon. and learned Friend is presently concerned will give him a certain amount of encouragement. Instead of asking me for a White Paper, I hope


that he will dedicate himself to making a speech in the Scottish Grand Committee tomorrow, when this subject will be discussed.

Mr. Noble: Is the Secretary of State aware that we on the west coast of Scotland are delighted that conditions there are better for rearing fish than they are in the east?

Mr. Manuel: Is my right hon. Friend aware that at Ardtoe, Ardnamurchan, Argyll, where the White Fish Authority is building an experimental fish rearing station, there is a bit of excitement among the rural population? Will he take steps to encourage the Authority, especially its Chairman, to carry on with the good work it has started? The Authority held a public meeting last week to carry the population of that area with it. Although it is a small experiment, will he tell the Authority that Scottish Members on both sides of the House are 100 per cent. behind the experiment?

Mr. Ross: Yes, I think that my hon. Friend is right. There is considerable excitement about the experiment at Ardtoe, Ardnamurchan. As to the benefits of the west, let us say that these are not due to any Government of one complexion or another, but, rather, to the work of nature. It is an accident of the sea and of geography that there are more sea lochs on the west coast than on the east.

Tenant Farmers (Security of Tenure)

Mr. Russell Johnston: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will take steps to improve security of tenure for tenant farmers.

Mr. Ross: I am not clear in what respect the hon. Member considers that security of tenure needs to be improved and have nothing at present to add to the reply which I gave him on 23rd March.

Mr. Johnston: Surely the Secretary of State must be aware that Labour candidates in the north of Scotland, at any rate, gave the impression that it was the intention of the present Government to extend security of tenure so that farms could be passed on to the son, or possibly to the widow, when the incumbent

died and the lease was not expired? Is he further aware that there is quite a bit of feeling among tenant farmers in the north of Scotland that certain landlords are taking the opportunity to dispossess families? They think that until a revision of this takes place there will not be stability in tenant farming in the North.

Mr. Ross: What the hon. Gentleman is really after is not security of tenure, which is fairly firm for the tenant farmer, but a change of the law of succession, which was changed in the 1958 Act. We have received representations about this from the Scottish National Farmers' Union, on the one hand, which wants a change made for the benefit of the family of the tenant. On the other hand, we have had opinions the other way, and they are being assessed at present.

Gin Trap

Mr. Clark Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will introduce legislation to abolish the gin trap in Scotland.

Mr. Ross: The use of the gin trap is permissible in Scotland for the capture of foxes and otters only. Arrangements have been made, in consultation with the National Farmers' Union, the Scottish Landowners Federation and the organisations concerned with salmon fisheries, for a survey over the next year of the extent to which the gin trap and other methods respectively are used for dealing with these species.
Thereafter I shall consider further whether the present law should be changed.

Mr. Clark Hutchison: Does the Secretary of State realise that this is a very unsatisfactory and cruel device which is banned in England? Is not the law rather ridiculous, in that animals cannot distinguish; they cannot tell that it is confined to otters and foxes? Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me something about the experiments which I believe are going on with the contraceptive pill and gas as more humane methods?

Mr. Ross: There is a later Question dealing with the latter point. The reason for the different legislative procedures of Scotland and England is, once again, the facts of geography. We have far


more hills. We have far more wild hill sheeplands. We have had strong representations about the effect the banning of the gin trap would have. It would cause serious losses on these lands. We must balance these factors before we come to any conclusion.

Mr. Rankin: Can my right hon. Friend tell me how other little animals can know that the fox has exclusive use of the gin trap?

Sir J. Gilmour: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information about the success of setting gin traps on island sites to achieve drowning after catching?

Mr. Ross: I believe that there are experiments into this, but I have no detailed information at present.

Mr. Stodart: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any progress report about the contraceptive methods for foxes which I believe were at least under experiment before? Has he any information from Canada on this subject?

Mr. Ross: Not in answer to this Question.

Non-toxic Tear Gas

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will call for reports from chief constables as to the extent to which they are equipped to use non-lethal gas in an emergency.

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will call for reports from chief constables on the extent to which the police are trained in the use of tear gas.

Mr. Ross: Arrangements are being made to supply police forces in Scotland with non-toxic tear smoke for use in the circumstances outlined by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary in replying to a Question by my hon. Friend on 20th May. Chief constables who wish to make arrangements for practical training are being advised to seek the assistance of local military commanders.

Mr. Rankin: Could my right hon. Friend make clear whether there will be limitations on the use of this gas? Will he also say whether there will be safeguards for innocent persons who may be

in the area? Can he assure us that this non-lethal gas will carry no toxic constituents?

Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend is quite right to be concerned about this as affecting the public. It must be remembered that it is for the protection of the public that this substance is being introduced. I give my hon. Friend the assurance that the gas would be used for dealing with armed criminals or insane persons when failure to use it might itself endanger someone else's life. I understand that there are no lasting harmful effects from its use. Notes and guidance will be issued to chief constable about its effects and on how it should be used. I give my hon. Friend the pledge that there will be strict limitations.

Mr. Dempsey: Although we are all very concerned to ensure that there should be adequate safeguards, this will be an effective method of dealing with the gun-toting gangsters who in true Western style are brandishing guns today in the face of Scottish policemen. Will it be equally effective with the hooligan gang warfare which is spreading fear and alarm throughout the community? Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that chief constables will have full power to use this method for the effective maintenance of law in the circumstances he has mentioned?

Mr. Ross: I have already said that chief constables will have full power to use it in the strict circumstances I have outlined. I am sure that it will be effective. It will certainly prevent the destruction of life by those against whom it is used.

Hydro-Electric Power (Development)

Mr. Russell Johnston: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will now make a statement on the Government's policy on the further development of hydro-electric power in Scotland.

Mr. Ross: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on the 26th May by my hon. Friend, the Joint Under-Secretary of State.

Mr. Johnston: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his continued failure to arrive at a decision in this


matter is a grave disappointment to many people? It is now nine months since the Government took office and, as he well knows, there was a long delay prior to that. Can the right hon. Gentleman at least give me some specific indication of when this decision will be made? It is vital to the whole of Scotland, and many people on both sides of the House are concerned about this continued delay.

Mr. Ross: It would be easy to reach a decision quickly, but whether or not it would be the right decision is another matter. It is because it would have a considerable effect on the economy and life of the Highlands that we have to make sure that it is the right decision. I am sure that the hon. Member would not want me to do other than take time to ensure that the right decision is made.

Mr. George Y. Mackie: What information does the right hon. Gentleman expect to receive to help him to make up his mind? Why cannot the right decision be taken now?

Mr. Ross: Because the factors involved are important to the life of the areas concerned and to a wider area. Many factors affecting the decision have developed over the 4½ years which have elapsed since the schemes were stopped and the hon. Gentleman knows that we have to study the generation of electricity in all its forms.

Children, Sutherland (Education)

Mr. George Y. Mackie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to enable children in the north and west of Sutherland to live in their own homes while receiving compulsory education.

Mr. Ross: I am anxious that children in thinly populated areas should have as good educational opportunities as children elsewhere, and we are considering with the education authorities concerned how this can best be achieved. Difficulties of communication, however, make it impracticable for all pupils to attend school within daily travelling distance of their homes for the whole of their school career.

Mr. Mackie: Is the Secretary of State aware that there are other serious problems connected with the problem of

schooling in that in the west of Sutherland we cannot get the fishermen who fish from Lochinver and Kinlochbervie to live in the area because their children have to go away at the age of 11 to schools on the east coast? If the fishermen are to remain there, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he must provide money to the county council to keep these schools open even if they normally would not be considered to have sufficient population to qualify for a grant?

Mr. Ross: This is a difficult problem in the remote areas, and here we have the bitter realities of the effects of depopulation, with the younger families going away and the school population falling to the point where one cannot give the children the proper breadth of courses and provide them with the kind of teachers required because of the size of the secondary school population. We are seized of the desire of parents that their children should be able to take up secondary courses and we must see that the children are given the best opportunities for career education in the same way as children in more populous areas.

Mr. Noble: While I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this is a difficult problem, may I express the hope that he will look at it as part of the problem of depopulation? If no schools are provided in these areas it is comparatively irrelevant what sort of education is provided for them elsewhere, because after that education they will not be there to help those areas.

Mr. Ross: This is why we have been giving considerable attention to the problem of depopulation in these areas. I hope that the Highland Development Authority set up by the Bill which we passed so recently will give considerable help and certain power to someone to do something about it in the area. The right hon. Gentleman knows the problem because he closed down some of these schools.

Teachers (Recruitment)

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many of the 6,300 inquiries regarding the teacher training scheme received by his Department in the month of May have been followed by firm applications;


how many of these have been accepted for training; and whether he will give comparable figures for inquiries received in June.

Mr. Ross: Since the Special Recruitment Scheme campaign was launched on 12th April, 10,392 inquiries have been received, including 5,421 in May and 3,313 in June. In the same period the Colleges of Education have received 726 applications, of which 171 have been accepted so far, 118 have been provisionally accepted pending the outcome of examinations, 151 have been deferred for further consideration until the applicants acquire certain preliminary educational qualifications and 20 have been withdrawn or rejected. The remainder have yet to be interviewed.
It would not be possible, without undue labour, to relate these figures to initial inquiries received in particular months.

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with these percentages? It would seem that they are rather disappointing. Does he think that further steps should be taken later?

Mr. Ross: This campaign is a very much bigger one than has been mounted hitherto. The number of inquiries made and the follow-up and the number of applications received have been very heartening. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we are far from dissatisfied with the position. We hope that even more inquiries will be forthcoming and that these will result in a further supply of teachers. It is very heartening to have had 10,392, bearing in mind that campaigns prior to this one had already taken people out of this field who might have been potential teachers. We hope to have a record number of teachers recruited under this scheme.

Lady Tweedsmuir: Can the right hon. Gentleman break down the figures to indicate the kind of applicants, whether women or men, and of what qualifications?

Mr. Ross: They are of all kinds, but we are going to have a greater degree of follow-up to see what happens to applicants prevented from following through to a course and find out whether

or not with some help and advice they can fit themselves with qualifications and be able to take advantage of this recruitment scheme. I hope that the statistics will be available later.

Farm Business Recording Scheme

Mr. Brewis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he intends to introduce the farm business recording scheme; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Ross: I hope to introduce this scheme on a pilot scale in Scotland in the autumn of this year. I propose to select for this purpose two or three counties within the area of each of the three Colleges of Agriculture. The details are still being worked out in consultation with the appropriate representative organisations. A further announcement will be made as soon as possible.

Mr. Brewis: I am grateful for that reply. Will there be any restriction of acreage? Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether farmers who have already been keeping business records with the various colleges will be able to obtain the benefits of this scheme?

Mr. Ross: We must appreciate at the start that this is a pilot scheme and the requirements for the scheme are still to be fully worked out. Those farmers who are keeping records and come within the scheme should be eligible for grant. I hope soon not only to give further details but also to indicate in what areas in relation to the three colleges the pilot scheme will be operated.

Mr. William Hamilton: When the scheme is fully operative, can we assess how much subsidy each farmer is receiving and whether he deserves it according to some kind of means test which the party opposite seems to favour in other fields?

Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend should be very much in support of the scheme.

Mr. Hamilton: I am.

Mr. Ross: He should support it because the more we get a sense of business into agriculture the more we shall be able to reduce the cost of agriculture, which will be to the benefit of everyone concerned.

Highland Development (Arterial Drainage)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that the current proposals for Highland development will involve increased arterial drainage as a basic requirement for resettling people in the area; and what private contractors are available in the Highland area for this work as direct labour is being abandoned.

Mr. Ross: I do not know what proposals my hon. Friend has in mind, but in any case there are a number of contracting firms which undertake or could undertake arterial drainage work in the Highland area. If, in the event, it turned out that approved work could not be done for lack of contractors, I should be ready to consider making special arrangements.

Mr. Rankin: The important part of my Question refers to the fact that direct labour is being abandoned. Does my right hon. Friend recall that this provision was made in the Tory Land Drainage Act of 1958, which was condemned by the Opposition at that time by bell, book and candle and described as a mouse? I am certain that no one delivered more vigorous speeches against it than my right hon. Friend himself. Will he assure us that that provision is not to be put into effect and that our direct labour department will continue?

Mr. Ross: We are dealing here with a special department of which considerable use was made during the war and thereafter, but it was, in fact, a very small department, very little call has been made upon it, and it has really become quite uneconomic. But I give my hon. Friend the assurance that, where work requires to be done, which is the important matter, we are determined to ensure that there will be facilities available, either private or public, to enable the work to be done.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Does the Secretary of State agree that direct labour departments are usually very inefficient, and will he assure the House that in no circumstances will the Highland Development

Board have a direct labour department of its own?

Mr. Ross: I could not agree with anything the hon. Gentleman has said on this question. Prejudice is a very poor guide in deciding on the desirability or otherwise of using direct labour departments in this field or in any other. This department was set up because we did not have private contractors. It worked well when there was work to be done. If, in the future, we do not find private contractors able to do the work which is required for the Highland Development Board, I hope that the Highland Development Board will have the power to ensure that it can do the work.

North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board (Wayleave Payments)

Mr. Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board last increased its wayleave payments: what information he has as to how such payments, expressed in percentages, for the various categories, compare with payments made by electricity boards in England and Wales; and what are the total disbursements by the Board in this respect.

Mr. Ross: The Board last increased its standard wayleave payments in 1959. These cannot be adequately compared in percentage terms with payments in England and Wales, but I shall, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table showing the scales. In the year ended 31st March, 1965, the Board's payments in respect of wayleaves for transmission lines amounted to £4,500 and for distribution lines to £34,000.

Mr. Baker: In view of the increased costs which farmers have to bear with the 6 per cent. rise in electricity charges in the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board's area, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the North of Scotland Board should raise its wayleave payments in comparison with those of the South of Scotland Board?

Mr. Ross: This is a matter for the commercial judgment of the Board itself and for negotiation between the Board and the interests concerned with wayleaves.

Following is the Table:


ELECTRICITY WAYLEAVES—STANDARD RENT AND COMPENSATION PAYMENTS



North of Scotland (From 15th May, 1959)
England and Wales (Former Rates)
England and Wales (New Rates)



Non-Arable
Arable
Non-Arable
Cultivated Grassland
Arable
Non-Arable
Cultivated Grassland
Arable



s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.


Poles


Single
1
6
6
0
1
0
3
6
6
0
2
0
7
0
12
0


Double
2
0
9
0
1
6
5
3
9
0
3
0
10
6
18
0


Stay
1
0
4
6
1
0
3
6
6
0
2
0
7
0
12
0


Towers


Under 10′ sq.
5
0
17
6
4
0
8
0
22
0
5
0
11
0
32
0


10′ sq. to 12½′ sq.
4
0
8
0
26
0
5
0
11
0
38
0


12½′ sq. to 15′ sq.
5
0
20
0
4
0
8
0
30
0
5
0
11
0
44
0


15′ sq. to 17½′ sq.
5
0
25
0
7
6
15
6
37
6
9
6
21
6
54
6


17½′ sq. to 20′ sq.
7
6
15
6
42
6
9
6
21
6
61
6


20′ sq. to 25′ sq.
5
0
30
0
7
6
15
6
47
6
9
6
21
6
69
6


25′ sq. to 30′ sq.
5
0
40
0
10
0
22
0
60
0
12
6
30
6
87
6


30′ sq. to 35′ sq.
10
0
22
0
75
0
12
6
30
6
109
6


35′ sq. to 40′ sq.
5
0
45
0
15
0
27
0
100
0
19
0
37
0
146
0


40′ sq. to 45′ sq.
15
0
31
0
125
0
19
0
40
0
166
0


45′ sq. to 50′ sq.
20
0
36
0
160
0
25
0
46
0
212
0


50′ sq. to 55′ sq.
20
0
40
0
195
0
25
0
52
0
258
0


55′ sq. and over
—
—
20
0
40
0
235
0
25
0
52
0
312
0

Probation Officers (Morison Committee's Recommendation)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made in his discussions with the local authorities on the implementation of the Morison Committee recommendation that a single negotiating body for Great Britain should be set up to deal with salaries and conditions of service of probation officers; and, in view of the delay in settling this matter, whether he will give an undertaking that an early decision will be taken by Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Ross: The consultations on the constitution of the employers' side of the proposed Great Britain body, referred to in the reply given to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes), by the Minister of State, Home Office, on 1st July, are in progress.

Mr. Hamilton: We are all gratified, and the probation officers particularly are gratified, with the decision which has been reached, but can my right hon. Friend give an idea of the date when it will be fully implemented?

Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend will appreciate that much of the delay between publication of the Morison Report in

1962 and getting the bodies together was due (a) to pay negotiations and (b) to negotiations between the local authorities. As soon as we received the last letter, dated 17th June, from the local authority associations in Scotland, we called them together for a meeting by a letter dated 18th June. They began on 6th July and, as far as I know, they are making good progress, so I do not think that there will be any great delay in coming to the desirable conclusion.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Does the Secretary of State recall the correspondence which I had with him on this subject? A solution to the problem has been delayed for far too long and should be expedited in the interests of probation officers.

Mr. Ross: I never forget any correspondence with my hon. and learned Friend because, being a persistent and very persuasive questioner, he would not allow me to. I agree that there has been delay, but I appeal to my hon. Friends who know something about the subject to remember that we are dealing here with a change to a United Kingdom body, there having been two bodies hitherto, one for England and Wales and one for Scotland. We are now getting the parties together to reach agreement, and it will have been worth a little delay if we reach the desirable conclusion.

Border Development

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will give an undertaking to publish the report on Border development not later than when he announces his own plans for the future of the Borders.

Mr. Ross: An account of the economic situation in the Borders, based on the study by the Scottish Economic Planning Board, will form part of the Government's published plans for the area.

Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: Would the right hon. Gentleman care to give us the date for publication of those plans, as he failed to give us a date yesterday when we very much wanted to hear one?

Mr. Ross: The right hon. Gentleman will be disappointed again today, but I am quite sure that he will not be surprised. In drawing up long-term plans for Scotland, it would be very foolish to try to work against time and be governed by particular dates. The general indication I gave to him of later in the year—the autumn—is quite adequate and, I am sure, meets the hopes of the people of Scotland who want to see, at long last, some realistic proposals covering the whole of Scotland.

Fish (Rail Transport)

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he is taking, following his meeting with a deputation of Scottish Members, to help the fishing industry, in view of the increase in freight charges and reduction in facilities of rail transport.

Mr. Ross: As a result of the meeting of Scottish Members with the Minister of State and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, the views then expressed were drawn to the attention of the Railways Board. I now understand that the Board has deferred changes in transport arrangements, though not in charges, for three months to enable the industry to review its transport and marketing arrangements. I understand that my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport has now written to the Members of the deputation.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that one of the undertakings given was that inspectors from the Scottish Department of Agriculture would help fishermen to overcome their problems? Does he know that, although the meeting took place six weeks ago, up to 11 o'clock this morning no inspectors have visited the port of Gourdon? Is he really concerned about the problems of these fishermen, particularly in the smaller places where there is great difficulty in co-ordinating facilities?

Mr. Ross: I assure the hon. Gentleman that my Department is very much concerned and has been able over the years to give considerable help to fishermen in these problems. But it is a difficult point, and the hon. Gentleman himself knows some of the reasons. There is the question of, in many cases, putting certain bulk loads on to road transport and leaving the railways with very much smaller loads to other areas. It is not an easy one to settle, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that, as far as possible, my Department of Agriculture will help. I do not know the reason why no one has been to the particular port the hon. Gentleman mentioned. I shall make inquiries, but I have no doubt that I shall find that my officers were in some other port with equally pressing problems.

Mr. Noble: I agree with the Secretary of State that he does not have responsibility for charges, but as these affect the small ports, mostly with inshore fishermen, is it not rather an odd moment, when these charges have gone up so greatly, to decrease the subsidy to inshore fishing?

Mr. Ross: That aspect of the subsidy to inshore fishing is not covered by the Question. The right hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to debate in in the Scottish Grand Committee tomorrow.

Rates

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what increase he anticipates will take place in local rates in Scotland in 1965–66; and when he will announce his plans on the reform of local government finance.

Mr. Ross: So far as I am aware, only 29 local authorities have announced their rate poundages for 1965–66, and they


show an average increase of about 7 per cent. over last year. This is too small a sample to justify any general conclusions. The Government's plans for the reform of local government finance will be announced as soon as possible.

Mr. Taylor: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the estimate in the last Scottish Question Time of an increase of about 4 per cent. has proved to be nonsense? Has he seen today's Press report that the Roxburgh County rate has gone up by 15 per cent. and the Huntly burgh rate by 18 per cent.? As the Government are themselves largely responsible for these scandalous increases, is it not time that they provided early relief?

Mr. Ross: I hope that one day when the hon. Gentleman begins a supplementary question with the words, "Does the right hon. Gentleman agree …?" I shall be able to agree. I certainly do not agree with him on this issue. He should not jump to conclusions. There are 233 local authorities. Why did he not also tell us that the Fife rate poundage—and Fife is one of the largest authorities—has gone up by only 1½ per cent.?
It is wrong to jump to conclusions. We all know that there is a rising trend and the Government have taken account of the increases in assessing the general grant. This year, we have put in an extra £1 million. This was promised by the last Government in 1963 but we produced it. We have also increased the general grant by £1·2 million for next year. This is quite outwith the formula for the general grant. Local authorities are better satisfied by the way in which they have been treated financially by this Government than by the last Government.

Mr. Woodburn: Will my right hon. Friend discourage this continual depreciation of the value of the rate? Will he take steps to ask the Scottish Films Council, for instance, to produce a film showing people what they get for their rates and the tremendous value of local authority services? While it may be possible for the Government to relieve local authorities, is it not right that the public should be informed that the rates constitute one of the cheapest ways of getting services such as education, sanitation and

the rest? It is quite scandalous to talk about the rates as being a burden.

Mr. Ross: Generally speaking, there may be some truth in what my right hon. Friend says. If people ask the local authorities to do more and more, then it costs more and more. Hon. Members are the first to ask for increased salaries for certain people in local authorities, such as the teachers, but it cannot be done without increasing the rates. They should follow through the obligations that their proposals entail. At the same time, however, there are hardships in respect of local rates and it may be that this is due to a defect within the system. These things are being examined and it is right that we should know about the situation.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We only reached Question No. 18 by 10 minutes past 3. I must invoke the aid of hon. Members on both sides to get on.

Mr. Taylor: Owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Schools (Religious Instruction)

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is satisfied with the present legislation relating to the giving of religious instruction in Scottish schools; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Ross: The present legislation embodies the long-standing principle that religious instruction should be provided in accordance with local wishes for pupils whose parents do not object and that there should be no control or direction by the Secretary of State. A wide measure of agreement among the educational and religious bodies concerned and the general public would be necessary before any amendment could be considered.

Mr. Taylor: While I appreciate that reply, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would agree that the nature of the law in Scotland is such that the inspectorate cannot either examine


or inspect the teaching of this subject in any way and that, in consequence, there is great variety of practice? Is it not time to look again at this, since the circumstances which caused the law in its present form have changed considerably and the Church of Scotland and other Churches are quite worried about the variations in practice?

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman should appreciate that the nature of the law in Scotland is related to a long history of education and the Church. We would be most unwise and foolish if we rushed to change it without bearing in mind the feelings of the general public. The hon. Gentleman should not make generalisations about the state of religious education in Scottish schools.

Mr. Buchan: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the prejudice of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Edward M. Taylor) in relation to rates is only equalled—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementary questions must not be used for that sort of purpose. It is out of order.

Scottish Tourist Board

Mr. George Y. Mackie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will decide on the Scottish Tourist Board's request for a special grant; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Ross: I have been having discussions with the Chairman and other representatives of the Board on financial and other matters and am meeting them again later today. I hope to be able to make an announcement shortly about the outcome of these discussions.

Mr. Mackie: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a satisfactory outcome will be welcomed? Is he further aware that it is very necessary, when there is every appearance that this has been a bad spring and early summer for the tourist trade, that the Board should have the extra ammunition to attract tourists to the Highlands?

Mr. Ross: I sincerely hope that the outcome will be satisfactory.

Ross and Cromarty (Traffic Signs)

Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland in view of the unsatisfactory delay in replying to representations made by Ross and Cromarty County Council regarding the Worboys Committee's Report on Traffic Signs, if he will ensure that the Scottish Development Department replies to the Council's letter of 24th March last without further delay.

Mr. Ross: I regret the delay which was explained in the reply sent to the county council on 2nd July, a copy of which was sent to the hon. Member, and which makes clear that since a major principle was involved more time was needed to assess its effects.

Mr. Mackenzie: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for that reply and for sending me a copy of the reply sent to the county council, may I ask him to ensure that an early decision is taken? Will he also bear in mind how important it is that Dingwall, capital of the county, a busy market centre and the gateway to areas of rapidly expanding tourism, should be enabled to have these primary route signs?

Mr. Ross: I am seized of the importance of Dingwall as the capital of Ross and Cromarty. I assure the hon. Gentleman sincerely that I think my Department slipped up in this. It should have made an earlier reply to the county council. I apologise for the delay and I hope that we shall be able to come to a fairly early conclusion.

Fish (Minimum Pricing Scheme)

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he now has for the introduction of a minimum pricing scheme for the Scottish white fishing industry.

Mr. Ross: I have nothing to add to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, to the hon. Member on 19th May.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: We were led to understand from the White Fish Authority that this scheme was ready. Can


the right hon. Gentleman explain what is holding this up? Is it the Treasury or the Department of Economic Affairs?

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman should appreciate that this is not quite so easy as his supplementary question would have us believe. This all started not a few months ago but as long ago as 1957. We have not been able to solve the problem since we received the White Fish Authority's proposals at the turn of the year, so the hon. Gentleman should not be too hard on us. This is complicated. It affects not only the fishing industry but every consumer in the country because of the price of fish and the effect on the Treasury. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that we are right to take our time in examining the scheme.

Mr. Stodart: While it is understandable that the right hon. Gentleman should wish to rest on the laurels of the achievement of the last Administration, is not he aware, from the Report of the White Fish Authority, that discussions between the Authority and the trade were authorised last July, and that excellent progress had been made by the end of the year? Who has been holding up the conclusion of something on which the Authority, the trade and the producers seem to be set?

Mr. Ross: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was listening to me or whether he looked at the files on this while he was still at the Scottish Office during the previous Administration of which he is so proud. Had he done either, he would have realised that, between 1957 and 1964, the last Government were not able to do anything about this at all.

School Building Programme (Bearsden and Clydebank)

Mr. Bence: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to expand the school building programme in Bearsden and Clydebank.

Mr. Ross: Dunbartonshire Education Authority's share of the capital investment available for school building is large enough to allow it to make good progress in these areas; four schools are under construction and four more are being planned.

Mr. Bence: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, as a result of savage cuts in 1962 and 1963 by the Department in Edinburgh, the situation in Bearsden and Clydebank is that we are not keeping pace with the number of children reaching school age? Will he speed up the programme in order to overcome the serious frustrations of the last 10 years?

Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend would like more to be done, and so would I. But we have to take due account of the available resources. I am satisfied that Dunbartonshire is getting its fair share of the resources available.

New Primary School, Kirkintilloch

Mr. Bence: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to speed up the provision of the proposed primary school at Oxgangs, Kirkintilloch.

Mr. Ross: Dunbartonshire Education Authority propose to start this school in April, 1966. Any question of starting earlier would be for the authority to consider.

Mr. Bence: I am very disappointed with my right hon. Friend's reply. This school has been under consideration for a very long time. As Kirkintilloch has an overspill agreement with Glasgow, the number of children coming forward for primary education has made it impossible to accommodate them unless extra primary accommodation is provided in Kirkintilloch at an early date.

Mr. Ross: I am sure that my hon. Friend would be the last to invite me to exercise tyrannical powers over the county council. Responsibility for deciding priority in schools selected for starting rests and must rest with the county council, as my hon. Friend will agree. I have no desire to interfere with that.

National Museum of Antiquities

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that a large part of the Scottish National Museum's collections of art and treasures under the care of the Queen's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer in Edinburgh are stored away and not accessible to the public or to scolars wishing to work on them, and that there are available for


the public exhibition of those collections space and facilities in Aberdeen; and if he will, in the public interest, transfer to Aberdeen those treasures which are now in storage.

Mr. Ross: The disposition of articles held by the National Museum of Antiquities of Scotland is a matter for the trustees whose policy, I am informed, is to keep on permanent exhibition a high proportion of their collection, including all objects which are of outstanding historical or aesthetic importance. Scholars who wish to work on items in the collections are given all necessary facilities.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Surely the Secretary of State cannot divest himself of responsibility in this matter. Is it not a national disgrace that treasures of this kind should be hidden away from scholars and others, who could study them and write about them, when in Aberdeen there are ample space and facilities for storing and exhibiting them to scholars who want to study them and write about them? Will my right hon. Friend review the policy to see that they are made available to scholars?

Mr. Emrys Hughes: In Aberdeen!

Mr. Hector Hughes: In Aberdeen.

Mr. Ross: I assure my hon. and learned Friend that I know of his prejudices about the accessibility of Aberdeen as against Edinburgh, but the Scottish National Museum of Antiquities in Edinburgh is readily accessible to all scholars who wish to avail themselves of the opportunity to study there. We are quite willing to make available in Aberdeen or elsewhere for temporary exhibition the treasures which my hon. and learned Friend has mentioned.

Lady Tweedsmuir: Does the Secretary of State realise that a very important question is involved and is causing a great deal of public concern throughout Scotland? Is he doing anything to reconsider the policy that the central museums in Edinburgh should have the right to store these articles and themselves to say that they are most accessible to students and scholars? Would he not agree that the St. Ninian's treasures, for example, should be permanently housed in Aberdeen where they were found—at least, by whose professors

they were found—until a suitable museum is established in Shetland? Does he not realise that, both for local history and for tourism, the policy ought to be changed?

Mr. Ross: It is amazing how changing sides in the House changes views. The hon. Lady knows quite well that St. Ninian's treasure was not found in Aberdeen. It was found by Aberdeen archaeologists working in Shetland. But it is a national treasure. As she knows, this issue was taken to law and a legal decision about it was made. What she really wants us to do is to upset the longstanding law of treasure trove. What we have to appreciate is that if we are to have national museums, Scottish or British, they will have to contain treasures and exhibits of considerable national importance and that may well deprive local people of what they would like to have in their areas. We have said that we are ready to make these treasures available in Aberdeen and Shetland on temporary exhibition at specific times.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I hereby give notice that I shall raise this important matter on the Adjournment when an opportunity arises.

Scottish Law Commission

Mr. Wylie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements have been made for the sittings of the Scottish Law Commission; how much time it is intended that the Commissioners will devote to the work of the Commission; and what salaries and remuneration are to be paid.

Mr. Ross: The arrangements for sittings are a matter for the Commission itself, which met for the first time on 30th June; the Chairman's appointment is on a full-time basis and the other members are to devote on average about two days per week to the Commission's work; the Chairman retains his remuneration as a Court of Session Judge and the other members are being remunerated at the rate of £2,000 per annum.

Mr. Wylie: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. Is he and the Lord Advocate satisfied that two days a week will be adequate for this small body to cope with the volume of


law reform which we all understood we were to have? There may be some disappointment in the profession that the work of the Commission is to be confined to such a relatively short time.

Mr. Ross: On available information, the Commission as at present organised should be adequate to its task. However, I am sure that if experience were to show otherwise, other arrangements would be made by the Commission.

Mr. David Steel: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what correlation there will be between the work of this Commission and that of the Commission established in England by the Lord Chancellor?

Mr. Ross: Arrangements have been made for correlation. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that this matter was dealt with in the discussions of the Bill.

Law Reform Committee

Mr. Wylie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether it is intended to retain the Lord Advocate's Law Reform Committee; and what remits have been made to this Committee since October, 1964.

Mr. Ross: My right hon. Friend, the Lord Advocate, attaches great value to the services which have been given by the members of the Scottish Law Reform Committee, and he is at present considering, in consultation with the Scottish Law Commission, the possibility of enabling the Committee, probably with somewhat different terms of reference, to make a continuing contribution to the work of law reform. No remits have been made to the Committee since May, 1962.

Mr. Wylie: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is most unfortunate that the opportunity to use the services of this Committee, which was reconstituted under the last Administration, has not been taken over the last eight or nine months?

Mr. Ross: I do not know why the hon. and learned Gentleman sticks at eight or nine months. The last remit was in 1962. Let him be fair about this and be as we know him—much more

objective as a good lawyer rather than playing the party politician.

Mr. Wylie: The right hon. Gentleman overlooked my observation that the Committee was recently reconstituted. It was reconstituted only last summer. Would he not agree that now is the time to take full advantage of its services?

Mr. Ross: We will take full advantage of the Committee. We ought to take full advantage of any arrangements that can be made for its further use in co-operation with the Law Commission. In all senses it will probably turn out for the better for Scottish law.

Farms (Grain Drying Plant and Storage Bins)

Sir J. Gilmour: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many applications under the Farm Improvement Scheme have been received by his Department since 1st November, 1964, for the construction of grain drying plant and storage bins; what proportion of these have now been completed; and what representations he has received about the difficulty of completing the remainder in time for the 1965 harvest on account of the shortage of cement.

Mr. Ross: I regret that the information asked for in the first two parts of the Question cannot be given without going through some 2,000 applications for farm improvement grants on buildings of all kinds as no separate statistics are kept about grain stores. As regards the last part, I have received representations from the National Farmers' Union about a shortage in one area and I am in touch with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Public Building and Works concerning this.

Sir J. Gilmour: In view of the bad weather which we have been suffering in Scotland, and as much of the barley is already flat, would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there will be a great need for every drying facility at the end of this harvest? Would it not therefore be right for him to urge his right hon. Friend to give priority to cement to finish grain drying plant?

Mr. Ross: I have already been in touch with my right hon. Friend about this


to ensure that, where there is an indication of shortage, action will be taken.

Mr. David Steel: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I am grateful to him for the action which he and his right hon. Friend took on the Borders N.F.U.'s application in this respect?

Seed Potatoes

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what steps he is taking to encourage seed potato growers to provide a satisfactory product for the English and overseas markets.

Mr. Ross: My Department, in collaboration with representatives of the seed potato growers and merchants, is working on a programme designed to tighten up and improve the standards of the Scottish Seed Potato Certification Scheme. Arrangements for stepping up check inspections of seed potatoes on farms under the Seed Potato Inspection Order are under consideration, and a review of inspection standards for export purposes is to be undertaken.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider running a pilot scheme financed by growers to extend the checking of potatoes to those which are not stock seed? Would he further consider extending the publicity about research into damage to potatoes so that farmers are made more aware of how they can help in this matter?

Mr. Ross: I dealt with research when we discussed the matter in the Scottish Grand Committee. What the hon. Gentleman suggests is being done. I think that we should wait to see how the present arrangements improve the position before we go further into the kind of pilot scheme which, I know, the hon. Gentleman would like to see.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SUPPLY)

Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Bowden.]

EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES (REGULATION)

3.31 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to regulate fee-charging employment agencies.
I think that I should begin by declaring my interest in the subject of my proposed Bill, which seeks to regulate fee-charging employment agencies, as they are called. For many years I was the assistant general secretary of the British Actors' Equity Association and I also have served upon the Public Control Committee of the London County Council, which has among its other duties that of licensing fee-charging agents. I am at present the honorary joint secretary of a body called the Theatres Advisory Council, which is representative of a broad range of interests concerned with entertainment.
My concern in this matter is mainly with theatrical agents, but in dealing with this question I have come into contact with the matter generally, and I find that many of the things which need to be dealt with in the theatrical sphere also need to be dealt with elsewhere. In 1949, the International Labour Organisation issued its Convention No. 96, which provides for the abolition or for the regulation of what are called in it fee-charging employment agencies. Twenty-eight countries have ratified this Convention, most of them, including France and Western Germany, have ratified under Part II of the Convention, providing for abolition. Five countries, including Israel, Japan and Turkey, have ratified the Convention under Part III, which provides for regulation.
In July, 1951, the then Labour Government announced that they proposed to introduce the necessary legislation to ratify the convention. That Government fell later in 1951 and it was not until 1957 that the Conservative Government of the time issued their proposals for ratification. Here again, the Conservative Government's proposals were for ratification under Part III of the Convention, providing not for abolition but for regulation. There was, therefore, the position that both sides of the House had agreed this was a necessary piece of legislation and had decided almost precisely the form which it should take.
These proposals of the previous Administration were discussed with the Trades Union Congress and other interested bodies and in 1958 the Home Office said that negotiations were complete. But nothing happened. In 1960, the Home Secretary of the time said that he did not know when legislation would be introduced. He was right about this and a year later he said that pressure of parliamentary business was such that there was not room for this legislation and so it has been ever since.
The fee-charging agencies have grown and flourished and some of them are very strange weeds indeed, particularly in the world of entertainment. The 1951 Labour Government's proposals were published in Cmnd. 8286 and I would like to quote a sentence from that document. It says:
… that it would be in the public interest to provide for such a measure of supervision and control over the activities of fee-charging employment agencies as would enable them"—
that is, the Government—
to ratify the Convention on the alternative basis described in the preceding paragraph.
This was on the basis of regulation. It says, later:
They propose, therefore, to introduce the necessary legislation in due course.
From time to time representations have been made, but there has never been time. When the question was put once again to the present Government, quite recently, the answer was still the same—not now, some other time, later. It is 14 years since the previous Labour Government announced their intentions to introduce legislation. It is eight years since the Conservative Government issued their proposals for legislation. I have them here and will quote one or two points.
The Conservative Administration in 1957 said that legislation would be introduced to ratify the I.L.O. Convention, as many other countries had done, but that the control would be effected through the larger local authorities. It would provide that everyone wishing to operate an employment agency should have a licence from the licensing authority, and should not charge any fee in excess of a scale submitted to and approved by that authority. There were a number of other proposals. The legislation was not actually drafted, but the broad outlines were agreed.
There were one or two other important provisions under discussion, such as one to prohibit an agent charging commission on the salary of his own employee. This is not so unknown as might be thought. Another proposal was one to prevent an agent acting for an employer and getting his remuneration by virtue of commission charged upon the salary of an employee. This, astonishingly, is quite frequent.
But the broad outlines were agreed and there the matter rested. I seek the permission of the House to introduce this legislation, which has been approved in principle on all sides, and which will be welcomed by the best agents as much as by almost everyone else, both employers and employees, who have experience in the matter.
During the years in which legislation has been awaited, abuses have flourished. The powers of the local authorities are at present virtually non-existent, and in the world of entertainment the practice of employers paying wages through agents instead of direct to artistes has grown up. The B.B.C. is particularly fond of this. There have been cases of agents absconding with the money. There are agents who charge huge percentages to beginners and this is quite legal at present. There are agents engaged by the B.B.C. to cast productions on the condition that they receive their remuneration, not from the Corporation, but from the artistes whom they engage.
This is particularly prevalent in the case of minor rôles, and it often results in the fee being reduced below the minimum. The artiste receives 90 per cent. of his fee, often after quite a long delay, and the agent takes 10 per cent., thereby saving the B.B.C. cost in its casting department.
There are agents who acquire the rights to engage companies on behalf of theatres abroad. For example, an agent recently engaged the Sadler's Wells Opera Company to perform in Australia. He made it a condition of the engagement that the artistes agreed to the Australian management deducting 10 per cent. of the salary of each artiste and paying it to the English agent. He thus drew 10 per cent. of all the salaries of the entire cast each week throughout the Australian engagement. Astonishing as it may seem, all these practices are entirely legal at present, and I believe that it would be widely


agreed, on both sides of the House, that they should be made illegal.
This is the purpose of the legislation which I hope the House will grant me leave to introduce. It was to stop such practices that the I.L.O. drafted the Convention. I therefore beg leave to introduce the necessary legislation to bring about the removal of these abuses and the long overdue ratification of this I.L.O. Convention.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Hugh Jenkins, Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop, Mr. Bernard Floud, Mr. Eric Lubbock, Mrs. Anne Kerr, and Mr. David Ensor.

EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES (REGULATION)

Bill to regulate fee-charging employment agencies, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 23rd July, and to be printed. [Bill 188.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[21ST ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee.

[Dr. HORACE KING in the Chair]

Orders of the Day — CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1965–66

CLASS IV. VOTE 18. MINISTRY OF TECHNOLOGY

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £8,761,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1966, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Technology, including certain subscriptions to international organisations. [£4,100,000 has been voted on account.]

Orders of the Day — TECHNOLOGY

3.41 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Marples: The Opposition have chosen the Vote of the Ministry of Technology as the subject of this debate. This gives the right hon. Gentleman the Minister his first, and, if I may say so, golden opportunity to render an account of his stewardship and of what he has accomplished during his period of office and what he proposes to do in future. The right hon. Gentleman has been nine months in a new job, which is rather unlike any position he has held before. We in the Opposition have been extremely reasonable and have given him every opportunity to settle down, which is more than the Labour Party ever gave me. When I became Minister of Transport, hon. Members opposite slapped a Motion of censure on me within five weeks of my taking office. We have given the right hon. Gentleman nine months, and I think that it is only reasonable that we should have done so.
This debate also gives us a chance to review the position as a whole. I should like to start with the policies outlined, and the hopes raised, by the Labour Party's prospectus "Signposts For The Sixties" and speeches before the election. In "Let's Go With Labour", it pledged:
A New Britain—mobilising the resources of technology under a national plan …. If we


are to get a dynamic and expanding economy it is essential that new and effective ways are found of injecting modern technology into our industries".
The phrase used by the Prime Minister was very startling. He intended to harness Socialism to science and science to Socialism.
There is no doubt that those speeches, and especially the Prime Minister's speech at Scarborough, had a great effect on the nation. The speech at Scarborough was an extremely fine example of the way in which words could be thrown together. This afternoon we are examining not only the words, but the deeds. [Interruption.]

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins) knows that the correct way of interrupting is not the way that he is adopting at the moment.

Mr. Marples: I thought that the Prime Minister's speeches were excellent. However, as I said when we had the first debate on technology under this Government, I judge the Minister of Technology by his deeds and not by his words.
What has the Minister done? He has had two phases in his Ministry. The first was to collect together many of the existing institutions which have been in existence for a long time, such as the Atomic Energy Authority, the N.R.D.C. and most of the D.S.I.R., including the Building Research Station. But these are not new institutions. They have been established for some time. They are going concerns and they have a record of work in progress. I therefore hope that we shall not have this afternoon from the right hon. Gentleman a catalogue of what these institutions, started a long time ago, are now doing.
I say that because I have had some experience of receiving briefs from Government Departments. No doubt they are put before the Minister. I am sure that he would reject the idea of giving a catalogue of what has been done in the past and would concentrate on the present and the future. We should like to know what innovations he has made and what he proposes to start. That is the first part of what his Ministry has done with several Acts of Parliament.
In the second part the right hon. Gentleman has sponsored four science-based industries. This was announced

by the Prime Minister on 26th November. The four industries are telecommunications, electronics, machine tools and computers. I should like to examine what the right hon. Gentleman has done, as distinct from the words which have been spoken, about those four industries.
In telecommunications nothing has happened at all. On 23rd June, the Minister said that various studies were being made, but that these were part of a continuing review. On 5th July, he added to that illuminating Answer by saying that he had nothing to add. The Post Office is by far the biggest customer of telecommunications in this country. If it knew what to do, and if the right hon. Gentleman knew what to do, they could move into action at once by using the purchasing power of the Post Office. I do not know whether the Minister has been able to persuade the Postmaster-General to adopt his way of thinking. So far, in nine months, not a single thing has happened. As I have said before, the private enterprise in Whitehall between one Government Department and another is possibly the fiercest and most savage battle ever fought, because a Government Department is always reluctant to give up any of its sovereign power, and this makes it very difficult indeed for the right hon. Gentleman.
I turn to electronics. On 23rd June, the Answer was that there were various studies being made and that these were continuing. On 5th July we had another illuminating addition to that Answer, to the effect that the right hon. Gentleman had nothing to add. In two out of the four sponsored industries which the right hon. Gentleman has taken over, precisely nothing has been done in nine months. We are complaining about the Southern Railway going slow, but, so far, action on 50 per cent. of the right hon. Gentleman's sponsored industries has not even started. This is difficult to square with the Labour Party's election manifesto, in which it talks about being "poised for instant action".
I come to the third sponsored industry, machine tools. By a stroke of luck for the harassed Minister, a "little Neddy", which had nothing whatsoever to do with his Department, produced a report on the machine tool industry. The right hon. Gentleman announced in the House that he was taking certain measures which


were based on that report. He started that announcement by saying that his Department was engaged on a full study. Of course, his Department is engaged on a full study. It ought always to be studying the problems which it is in existence to deal with, and I do not see why that should be said. Again, he went on with the phrase about the study continuing. He said this in column 183 of HANSARD for 1st June, column 42 of HANSARD for 15th June and column 230 of HANSARD for 23rd June.
What I object to is this. This business of saying that his Department is studying the matter, and that the study is continuing, enables the Minister never to come to the House and give us the conclusions of that study. The Department is continuing to study, but we never get any conclusions, either final or interim.
Therefore, of the first three industries that the right hon. Gentleman is sponsoring, in two he has done nothing and in the third he is making a full study which is continuing. This does not square with the election manifesto of the Socialists, in which they said that they were "poised for instant action". It is crystal clear that they had not the slightest idea what to do with the Department of the Minister of Technology.
I come to one other point about the machine tool industry which is disturbing. I do not want to argue the merits of nationalisation and private enterprise—

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Robert Mellish): We know the right hon. Gentleman's views.

Mr. Marples: I agree with the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, who interrupts from his sedentary position on the second bench. I know his views, too. I do not want to argue whether he is right or whether I am right.
It is the view of the hon. Members opposite, and they have said it repeatedly, that this industry, or part of it, should be nationalised. In their Labour Party programme—for example, in "Signposts For The Sixties"—they said:
In machine tools, for example, our aims will probably best be realised by means of

competitive public enterprise—the establishment of new, publicly owned plants, specialising in the types of machine tools which existing firms are not producing satisfactorily.
The Trades Union Congress supported that, stating, in its 1957–58 Report:
Congress believes that the greater part of the machine tool industry should be brought under public ownership.
As recently as a few months ago the Minister was asked whether he had abandoned the idea of a State-owned machine tool industry and he said, "Certainly not."
Therefore, the threat of nationalisation hangs over the machine tool industry. Whether we approve of nationalisation or not, it is on the agenda that the industry could be nationalised at any moment the Government so decide. Hon. Members opposite do not realise—they may realise it more now than they did at the time of the election—that one of the ingredients, in fact the most important ingredient, for success is confidence and that one of the ingredients for failure is uncertainty.
The machine tool industry is uncertain of its future. The question to which the Government should address themselves is whether they are nationalising it. The industry will have difficulty in raising capital. The Machine Tool Trades Association has said to some of my colleagues that the industry is being harmed, particularly overseas, by persistent rumours of nationalisation. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is hon. Members opposite who do it."] No. One of the questions which I should like the Minister clearly to answer is: does this threat of nationalisation hang over the machine tool industry or not? This afternoon, in the time of the Opposition, the Minister has an opportunity of letting the nation in general, and the machine tool industry in particular, know what the threat is. Is it there or it is not?
So much for the first three sponsored industries. I now come to the fourth, computers. Unlike the other three industries, in which the Minister has, I think, been unwise, in this one he has certainly done something. My difficulty, however, is in assessing precisely the value of what his proposals add up to in terms of cash. It is difficult to find out from the information given in Written Answers, and so on, how much cash


annually the Treasury and the Minister are devoting to sponsoring the computer industry. If it was an enormous sum of money, the support would be immense. If, on the other hand, it is a small sum of money, it is small support.
What I am anxious to get at, but have not been able to find, and what I should like this side of the Committee to be given—it would be unfair to expect the Minister to give the reply when he speaks immediately after I have finished, but perhaps his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary can get the information before he winds up the debate—is the amount of the annual sum of money which is being devoted to promoting the computer industry.
So far as far as I can see, in the part of the industry that is under the Minister's direct control he is reviewing the requirements of universities, colleges of advanced technology and research institutes and is to give £2 million a year. Under the right hon. Gentleman's control would be the National Computer Programme Centre, which, I calculate, amounts to £½ million a year. Thirdly, the old D.S.I.R. has the advanced computer techniques, which come to another £½ million.
As to the cash that is given but is not under the Minister's direct control, under N.R.D.C. is the loan to the I.C.T.—a loan, not an outright grant—and something towards computer techniques. I may be wrong—that is why I ask for the information—but I calculate £5 million a year to be the maximum that is being contributed towards the computer industry. If I am right in this figure, it is a yardstick and a measure of how much cash will be spent per annum. It amounts to the cost of about 10 to 15 miles of motorway.
I do not believe that that is an effort of great magnitude in our science-based industries, because it will not go very far. In addition, the Government have done something on the other side by devaluing investment allowances. Investment allowances were of great assistance to the computer industry in the past, when it had a 30 per cent. allowance on 51 per cent. of the tax that it paid. Now, it is to have a 30 per cent. allowance, but on only 35 to 45 per cent. of the

Corporation Tax which is paid. Therefore, the industry has the incentive of £5 million a year and the disincentive of losing quite a large proportion of the investment allowance.
I should like to ask the Minister something else concerning computers. The information that is available to us on computers is in bits and pieces. It is extremely difficult to piece together what the Minister is doing. It is not organised methodically, it is not done comprehensively and sometimes it is downright contradictory. I will give an example of how contradictory it is and the difficulty of getting at the facts of what is happening.
On 23rd February, the Minister of Technology was asked
what facilities exist in his Department for the study of restrictive practices on both sides of industry.
The right hon. Gentleman's Answer was:
Restrictive practices in industry are primarily the concern of my right hon. Friends the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Labour. I am naturally concerned with the social impact of the adoption and efficient use of new techniques, plant and machinery and have set up a separate branch to deal with this aspect of the work of my Department."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd February, 1965; Vol. 707, c. 54.]
Thus, on 23rd February, the Minister said that he had set up a separate branch to study and to find out about it.
On 15th June, a few months later, we asked the Minister what progress was
being made by the branch of his Department concerned with the social impact of the adoption and efficient use of new techniques".
The Answer, which I ask the Committee to note, was as follows:
This very important subject is carefully watched throughout my Department in the course of its work. It is not the responsibility of a single branch."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th June, 1965; Vol. 714, c. 48–49.]
On 23rd February, the Minister said that he had set up a special branch, but on 15th June he said that it was not the responsibility of a single branch. The Committee will see from this the difficulty which faces the Opposition in getting reliable information from the Minister of Technology to judge what his deeds have been.
Another Question was put on 30th March, when the Minister was asked


what computers the public sector had purchased. The right hon. Gentleman replied:
Statistics of public sector purchases are not at present collected in the detail asked for. I am examining whether, without a disproportionate expenditure of effort, it would be practicable to do so in future."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th March, 1965; Vol. 709, c. 203.]
If the Government themselves cannot collect the information about the numbers of computers which they have purchased, what hope is there for the Minister of Technology?
I should like to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to what happens in the United States of America. They have an inventory every year of the automatic data processing equipment in the Federal Government. This inventory gives full information of every computer purchased, and, what is more important, of the price range it is in. One can see how effective it is, what is does, where it is situated. A whole heap of information is given.
I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he and his Department look at this United States publication to see whether it can produce something on similar lines which, I am sure, would help the right hon. Gentleman in his studies, and would certainly help the nation as a whole in its studies. [Interruption.] I am only commending it to the right hon. Gentleman. He was appointed as Minister of Technology to do this very job, and I am only trying to assist him to do it by giving him advice and guidance on what he ought to do.
I may point out, for example, that in 1954 the United States had 10 computers; in 1956, 90; in 1958, 250; in 1960, 531; in 1962, 1,030. They projected it forward to 1964–66. In 1964 they hoped to have 1,767 and in 1966, 2,150—[Interruption.]

Mr. Wilkins: May I ask the Minister—

The Chairman: Before the hon. Member intervenes I would point out that, if the Front Bench wants to intervene, there are no special rules of conduct for the Front Bench and that it must intervene in a proper way.

Mr. Wilkins: I was wondering whether the right hon. Gentleman would

give us the date of the publication. That is relevant.

Mr. Marples: Certainly. I am very grateful to the hon. Member for starting to put his question originally by saying, "May I ask the Minister?" The date of this publication is July, 1964.
It therefore projects 1964 forward. The 1965 one will be out any moment.

An Hon. Member: "But 1966?" This is the 1965 one.

Mr. Wilkins: It goes back 10 years.

Mr. Marples: It goes back to the first generation of computers, when they started.
I would ask the right hon. Gentleman seriously to concentrate on this. We want to be able to assess what our own country is doing as against what America is doing. I have tried to do some homework on this and I find, for example, that in agriculture here we have five computers; the United States has 56. In health, education and welfare the United States has 112 computers and we have—if I say two and a half let it not sound ridiculous—we have two with the half use of another one, so we have, in fact, two and a half.
I believe that at the moment we spend £1,000 million a year on health, but we have not a computer of any sort there. Therefore, I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he looks at this document, and if he likes I will lend him my copy to assist him.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: Would the right hon. Gentleman say who was responsible for failing to install these computers?

Mr. Marples: The computer, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is a comparatively new tool. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] All I am saying is this. Bright words were uttered at Scarborough and in the Labour Party's election manifesto. The nonsense talked about the Socialists' being poised for instant action is shown for what it was worth. They were not poised for anything. They were nowhere near ready to move, and the hon. Gentleman knows it.

Dr. Bray: The right hon. Gentleman has spendidly documented the utter


failure of the last Government either to understand the use of a computer or to do anything about it. Does he not realise that no computer could possibly be in action today unless it was ordered before the election?

Mr. Marples: I would not accept that, either. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] No. I would not accept that. For example, if local authorities were prepared to accept the programme—the software—which had already been done by another local authority, they could go into action straightaway. The hon. Gentleman agrees with me on this? The problem of getting a computer into action is not in buying the hardware but to get the software formulated. [An HON. MEMBER: "Get on."] I am not surprised that the hon. Member wants me to get a move on. The second interruption by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West (Dr. Bray) can be demolished easily. [Interruption.] The Patronage Secretary should keep quiet. He is paid a large sum of money to keep quiet.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Edward Short): May I say for the second time this week that I have not lost my right to speak in this Chamber if I wish to do so: I represent a constituency, too, just as the right hon. Gentleman does.

Mr. Marples: The Patronage Secretary has a right to speak, of course, but not from a sedentary position. He is paid to sit in a corner and keep quiet. If he wants to speak he should stand up. He must not try to help his hon. Friend because he is in a corner.
The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the hardware is easy to deal with. The difficult part is getting the programme. He knows that where local authorities have the same task right throughout the country—collecting rates, looking at the vehicle traffic, budgetary control, and so on—the same programme will do for every local authority.

Dr. Bray: rose—

Hon. Members: Order.

The Chairman: If the right hon. Member does not give way the hon. Member must sit down.

Mr. Marples: The Minister knows very well that a lot of individual local authorities, although the work on the software has been done by other local authorities, insist on doing it again by themselves, and using scarce scientific resources in the process. That is happening now. I think that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West will do well if he stays in his seat. If he keeps bobbing up and down like that he will be made Patronage Secretary before he knows where he is.
Now I come to the reason why the United States has had a dynamic policy in its public sector. It has, of course, spent a great deal of money, and in the private sector it has expended enormous funds. For example, it has bought computers of an advanced type and insisted on people like Boeings using them. In the private sector, where any private firm tenders for a contract, where sub-contractors are involved, it insists on a computer programme showing the critical part of the construction methods employed. The United States did this with the Polaris submarine and does it for major constructional works.
If that were brought into the Government's scheme here, then it would be an encouragement and a great inducement to private enterprise to do this sort of thing. I am quite certain that the right hon. Gentleman will do all he can to make a success of his present job, but I believe this: I would like him to have the power of co-ordinating and maybe having control of the computers in all the Government Departments. I would like him to have that, and I would like him to see that the software, systems analysis, and so on, is done efficiently. Thus he could measure the benefits.
Of course, he should run for civil servants top management courses in computers, because we are managing now, in Government Departments, for change, and not static conditions. One thing should be clear. Unless top management at Westminster—that is, the politicians—and in Whitehall—that is, the civil servants—understand the application of this new tool we shall never get it adopted thoroughly and efficiently in this country.
I say this to the right hon. Gentleman. If, unfortunately, I were to be a Minister in the present Government, but in another Department than that of the right hon. Gentleman, I should be fully prepared to


give him that power from my Department—give it to the right hon. Gentleman in the interests of the country as a whole. One question I want to ask him is this. Has he got that power? I do not believe that he has. If I were asked to do his job with what I believe are his terms of reference—and I hope that he will explain those to us when he replies—I should have to think a lot about whether I could accept it on those terms, because I believe that if he has not that power of control he can never do the job—and maybe that is the reason why he has done nothing up to now.
If the right hon. Gentleman has that power and that control, then he has been guilty of gross negligence. If he has not got it, I do not think that he should have accepted the job. As Sir Leon Bagrit said recently to Members of the House:
Perhaps he should be a Minister of Modernisation, equal in status to, say, the Minister of Defence, highly placed in the Cabinet, with power to co-ordinate the policies of other departments in order to reach the main objective.
We want to know whether the right hon. Gentleman has that power. I do not believe that he has, and I think that that is why he has achieved nothing in the past, and why he will achieve nothing in the future. If he has not got that power, we shall continue to scratch around like a lot of part-time British amateurs compared with the full-time American professionals.

Mr. Robert Maxwell: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that if the Prime Minister were to give the Minister of Technology the kind of co-ordinating power which he has just mentioned the net effect would be that all other Government Departments would opt out of scientific and technological problems on the principle of saying, "Let the Minister of Technology deal with it"? Surely that would not be in the national interest?

Mr. Marples: The hon. Gentleman's knowledge of government is like Sam Weller's knowledge of London, extensive and peculiar, and I shall tell him why I say that. The Board of Trade has a computer. My hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) asked the President of the Board of Trade how soon after the end of the month the Trade and

Navigation Accounts were published during the period January to April, 1964, and January to April, 1965. In 1964, the previous Government were in power, and no computer was available. In 1965 this Government were in power, and a computer was available. The answer was that on average it took 18½ days without a computer under the Conservatives, and 21 working days with a computer under a Socialist Government. That gives the Committee some idea of the hon. Gentleman's knowledge of Government Departments.
I am not necessarily arguing for more computers. What is really wanted is the proper use of them, and the illustration which I have just given shows that they are not being used properly. Which part of the right hon. Gentleman's Department looks at them? Or is it left to the Board of Trade? If it is left to the latter, I should not like to be the Minister of Technology responsible for the efficient use of computers.
If we are to make proper use of computers, it is clear that we must have enough trained operators—systems analysts, programmers, and so on. We have to get estimates of the future, and we have to train people to do the work. It is often asked what we have done. During the period 1950 to 1964 the number of scientists and technologists increased from 8,000 to 20,000, which shows that we did something there. It is not so much a question of training systems analysts and programmers. Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that we are making efficient use of the scientists and technologists who are available? I do not believe that we are.
I went to see a computer centre of the metropolitan boroughs in south London. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology has visited it, because his constituency is one of the metropolitan boroughs which uses it. It took the centre a long time to get off the ground, but it now has rating, pay roll, stores, vehicles, transport, costing and budgetary control, under a computer. It is working extremely well, and the centre ought to be congratulated on the progress it has made, and on the voluntary co-operation which brought it about.
The centre is also extremely generous. It has said that if any other local authority goes to it, it will give that authority its soft ware and its programmes free of charge. That is a generous offer. It took five man-years to prepare the rating programme which it fed into the computer, yet other local authorities all over the country are starting their own computers from scratch. Why are they doing this? Here are five man-years of work on rating at their disposal free of charge, and yet they are advertising for scientific people to start from scratch to deal with the problem that has already been dealt with.
The same thing happens with the area electricity boards. I visited one of them, the Yorkshire Electricity Board. It took the board six or seven years to get off the ground, but it is metering the readings into a computer, and the readings are stored on magnetic tape. The system is working well, yet electricity boards in other areas are starting from scratch to do what this board has already done. These other boards are drawing on scarce manpower to give them the programmes that they want.
Does this National Computer Programme Centre which the Minister announced on 1st March function? If it does, will the Minister look into those two illustrations which I have given, and, if necessary, let the Minister of Power give a direction that all area boards should use the same programme? Let us conserve scarce resources, and not waste them.
There is another point about computers which is worrying me, and which I am sure worries the right hon. Gentleman. I do not believe that it is possible for any one country outside the United States or Russia to "go it alone" in the technological field nor to operate in other than an international market. It has to co-operate in ventures in other countries, and then specialise in certain chosen areas. For example, the United Kingdom should specialise in electronic data processing rather than try to offer expertise on a wide range or the whole front.
I believe that the latest compelling reason why the whole of Europe must come together is the rapid advance of technology. The enormous rate of change in technology is opening up a

frightening gap between small European nations and the huge super Powers of the United States, Russia, and maybe China later. To meet this disparity in a spirit of old-fashioned nationalism would be suicidal. Europe must unite on this technological front or become a "lesser Orient" altogether.

Mr. Maxwell: Is that statement really true? Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that if we as a nation were to choose certain sectors of science and technology on which we wished to make a major effort we would have sufficient resources, brain power, and economic power to be eminent? We cannot do it across the whole front, but if we chose a certain sector, such as computers, we would be bound to succeed.

Mr. Marples: The hon. Gentleman is helping me by repeating what I said. I said that we could not go on over the whole front. We in the United Kingdom have to specialise in certain areas of electronic data processing. The hon. Gentleman must listen when we are trying to educate him. We know that it is a difficult task, but we shall continue to try.
I believe that we have to create larger and more efficient industrial units, first on the European scale, but ultimately reaching out beyond Europe to a worldwide pattern. No business which is not world wide will survive the challenge of the technological giants. Developments in the past, such as the Concord, are not enough. I should like to see a greater exchange of capital investment between British and European countries.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Does not the right hon. Gentleman's argument about technological development rule out the possibility of having an independent nuclear deterrent?

Mr. Marples: The hon. Gentleman must put that question to his right hon. Friend, not to me. I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman if he wishes to answer it.
I believe that European co-operation is the best way of preventing the American domination of European industry, especially in computers, where I.B.M., through brillant organisation and management, is strongly entrenched. Why not have a centralised European software


centre, where the cream of those qualified experts, who are scarce, could eliminate wasteful competition. Then we could produce a range of software on which European computer hardware could be standardised, and which would be wider and more advanced than anywhere else in the world.
In future the right hon. Gentleman will choose other industries to sponsor, and I offer him a few suggestions as to what industries he might choose.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: If the hon. Member believes in a European centre why did not his Government do a great deal more to help C.E.R.N. when that body needed help?

Mr. Marples: I am dealing with the right hon. Gentleman's responsibilities. He has been in office for nine months, and if all that can be said by hon. Members opposite is, "Never mind about the future. What happened in the past?", all their talk about instant action is nonsense. They are jobbing backwards all the time. That is, apparently, all that they can do.
I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that one industry that really ought to be taken over when he considers his next lot of sponsored industries is the building industry. I have said this before, and I shall go on saying it until he does take it over. It should be taken over quickly. It is not the fault of the building industry that it is expensive in what it does; it is the fault of the architects, in the design field.

Mr. Maxwell: Hear, hear.

Mr. Marples: I hope that the hon. Member will not be too enthusiastic, of he will sap my confidence.
The building industry is one of the few where design and construction are separated into two compartments. I have asked somebody who has carried out studies in the United States and in Canada to give me the comparable statistics for those two countries and Britain. In the construction industry 1·6 million workers are employed and in the building materials industry 0·4 million, making 2 million altogether. In this country we argue about rents and interest charges, but what is important is getting down the cost of building.
In New York, the cost of building is practically the same as it is in the United Kingdom, in spite of the fact that the cost of contract labour is approximately four times greater in New York than it is in this country, apart from one or two exceptions. In New York, a labourer receives 32s. an hour and a craftsman 39s. an hour, yet they produce a hotel bedroom at the same price as that at which it can be produced here. What would happen to our costs if we paid craftsmen and labourers 39s. and 32s. an hour, respectively?
In Canada, the position is the same. In some cases it is 25 per cent. cheaper there than it is here, although the cost of labour is twice what it is in this country. That means that there is an enormous financial drain and a drain on our resources. We should be building houses with standard kitchens. Why should an architect design one sort of kitchen in Birmingham and another in Liverpool, another in Cardiff, another in Perth—

Mr. Anthony Fell: And another in Great Yarmouth.

Mr. Marples: And Great Yarmouth, yes. I did not know that they had any kitchens there. I am glad to know that they have penetrated to Great Yarmouth.
The building industry is one on which the right hon. Gentleman ought to concentrate.
Another industry, which is the ninth in size in this country, is the paper and printing industry, which has more people working for it than the steel and motor car industries. It is a really good candidate for examination by the right hon. Gentleman, for two reasons. First, the restrictive practices in the industry are scandalous, and, secondly, technology can be swiftly applied in that industry, because it is not a heavy basic industry like the building industry. It is small in size. Electronic devices which have now been applied to printing outside London are not being permitted inside London. If we had a major drive in this industry we could save an enormous amount of labour, which could be used for other purposes.
There is one other job which the right hon. Gentleman must forgive me for mentioning, but which is an absolute "natural" for him to deal with, namely, the modernisation of the docks. I say that for two reasons. I believe that the


right hon. Gentleman has more influence with the labour in the docks, in his own union, than any other man in this country. If he cannot deal with it I do not think that anybody else can. I sincerely suggest that this job goes down on his list, because his past history has given him enormous influence in this matter, and now that he is in charge of technology my hon. Friends and I will help him all we can.
My last point concerns the Atomic Energy Authority. The Minister has a particular responsibility here. He must see that it is efficient. He must ensure that the Authority examines the right problems, such as marine nuclear propulsion. He must see that it sells its products at the right price, and that it has an efficient organisation in general—including the organisation of management and men.
Pay claims are outstanding in the Atomic Energy Authority. It has a senior staff of 500 for whom there is to be an increase in pay of 4 per cent., backdated. There is a pending wage claim for 17,000 manual workers. The right hon. Gentleman, as a Cabinet Minister, has a responsibility to his colleagues. The Cabinet has a collective responsibility. The Government have pronounced what their policy is on prices and incomes.
At the recent Transport and General Workers' Union Conference, on Friday, the right hon. Gentleman made some remarks which implied that he approved of the union's resolution rejecting an incomes policy. I do not know whether that is right or wrong—

The Chairman: Order. Whether it is right or wrong has nothing to do with this debate.

Mr. Marples: With due respect, Dr. King, the Atomic Energy Authority is the responsibility of the Minister. That being so, he ought to declare whether he is in favour of the Government's prices and incomes policy, out of loyalty to his colleagues if not out of deference and respect to the Committee.

The Chairman: The prices and incomes policy is not part of the work of this Department. On this Vote the right hon. Gentleman must discuss the work of the Minister.

Mr. Marples: I made a lot of inquiries whether or not this was in order beforehand—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Why not? I did so out of respect for the Committee. I do not want to waste time on "phoney" points of order. It was only courteous to the Committee to make inquiries on this matter. Since it comes under the right hon. Gentleman's responsibility, and since the policy of the Government collectively applies to his Department individually, all I want to know is whether he accepts that policy, as a Minister.

The Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman has obviously done some research in this matter, but he must accept the Ruling of the Chair. If we applied his argument to every Vote we could take up every item of Government policy with every Minister. We must keep to the Vote that we are discussing.

Mr. Marples: I made my inquiries because I wanted to know that the point that I was making was in order, Dr. King. If my inquiries had shown that it was out of order I can assure the Committee that I would not have raised it.

The Chairman: Order. I have added to the right hon. Member's inquiries by giving him the information that the Chair is ruling that his question is out of order.

Mr. Marples: I accept your Ruling, Dr. King. I will not continue on this point, but if the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to give the information we shall be grateful.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: The right hon. Gentleman has spoilt it. He has allowed his obsession and prejudice to spoil his speech.

Mr. Marples: There is no prejudice on this side. The prejudice is on that side of the Committee, as shown by the way things have happened.
In certain parts of my speech I have been critical of the Minister, because I do not think that he has done sufficient. I cannot fault him on what he has done, because he has not done enough for me to fault him. I have also tried to be constructive and show that the Opposition are trying very hard to do their homework in this matter. After the next election that homework will be needed,


so that we can clear up the mess that the Socialist Government have left behind.

4.30 p.m.

The Minister of Technology (Mr. Frank Cousins): I shall not attempt to compete with the comedy act which has just been put on and which has been directed towards trying to establish that I have not resolved in a short time the economic mess in which we found ourselves on coming to power. Nor will I allow the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) to make my speech for me. I do this, because I happen to think that this is a serious subject.—[Interruption.] Of course most of it is already written out. In passing, I would say that I rely more on my scriptwriters than on those responsible for the speech which we have just heard.
The questions which the right hon. Member put, in some instances, need further comment before we get down to the discussion on technology. One question was what we are doing about our position compared with that of America, where computers are 20 times as numerous as they are in this country. This information could have been extracted from a speech which I made to the House, when I drew attention to the need to take action on this, because I did not accept that our relative industrial position justified our assuming that we could remain in the forefront with a ratio of 1 to 20. I have not changed my view about that and we are pursuing every possible means of getting computerisation into British industry. As my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Dr. Bray) said, we cannot order computers today and put them in tomorrow. That just is not possible.
A very serious situation existed when we took office, in that many of the computers already ordered—this is known to hon. and right hon. Members opposite—were already earmarked from American producers. It is said that local authorities have not co-ordinated their efforts. This is true. This was one of the functions of the Computer Unit. We are having a tussle to get them out of the atmosphere which they were in, out of the position in which they were encouraged to believe that independence and freedom to do as they wished were the

hallmarks of successful operation under the last Administration. I have said elsewhere that we cannot "go it alone". We need to make our associations with other people and co-operative efforts of value to us. They must be of value to us. Co-operative efforts have to be, in the eyes of this Government, those which bring material value and return to us, because our economic position is such that we need that kind of aid.
It has been suggested that I might "take over"—a nice phrase, which I shall remember—other industries. The right hon. Member suggested the docks. Does he recall that, a number of years ago, I came to see him about the docks when we were both in rather different positions? I was asking for his material aid to mechanise, modernise, and develop the docks, and I put forward proposals to him as to how this could be done. The right hon. Gentleman was quite happy to continue under the provisions of the Act which enabled any surplus money to be spent on reducing port charges instead of modernising and mechanising. I do not wish to dwell on the past. I did not start this. I had assumed that we were to talk about the future.

Mr. Marples: Surely the right hon. Gentleman remembers that it was during my term of office as Minister of Transport that we had the Rochdale Committee and an Act of Parliament especially to modernise the docks, and a large sum of Treasury money was paid for that purpose?

Mr. Cousins: I refrained from interrupting the right hon. Gentleman. I did not think that it was necessary for us to do that.
I recall this. I am aware that we put forward proposals to the right hon. Gentleman about the mechanisation and modernisation of the docks, and that that was not accepted as the method by which we should approach it. He will, of course, also recall that, on another occasion, addressing him in his capacity as Minister of Transport, we drew attention to the fact that they were allowed to become individualistic and private enterprise-minded and to go running off to carry out separate functions. One body was split up and made into four, and we did not think that that was good. If the right hon. Gentleman is now converted


to the idea that we should co-ordinate efforts and use local authorities and have a standard central computer system—

Sir Douglas Glover: Is it in order to discuss the Ministry of Transport? I thought that the debate was about the Ministry of Technology.

The Chairman: When the right hon. Gentleman departs from the subject of technology, I shall call him to order, as I did the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples).

Mr. Cousins: In attempting to remain within order—

The Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. I was not calling him to order. I was reproving the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover), who sought to advise me to call him to order.

Mr. Cousins: I said, "In attempting to remain within order", and you have confirmed that I was, Dr. King. I simply dealt with the relevant points raised by the right hon. Member for Wallasey. If you had ruled the other interruption by the right hon. Member in order, I should have attempted to deal with that one, too—[Laughter.] I might, even yet—

The Chairman: I would advise the right hon. Gentleman to resist temptation.

Mr. Cousins: May we now go back to the subject which the debate is about?
No one can argue against the future of technology. It is now eight months since we had a serious debate on it, which I listened to but was not able to take part in. The Ministry of Technology had been set up only a few days and we had no organisation. Much of the discussion centred upon the type of organisation which was felt to be needed to do the job.
No one can question the need for the job which my Department is setting out to deal with. I assume that this is common ground between us and that industry needs to get in the forefront of technological advance if it is to retain its place in a world which is at once highly competitive and in a state of great change.
There was agreement on both sides of the House that the Government had a vital part to play in this. In some measure, the right hon. Member for

Wallasey has endorsed that view. There are areas in which it is felt that we should be doing more. One point was the question of the finance involved. I shall deal with that a little later. I do not think that the assumptions upon which this is based can be challenged. If they could, it would be strange, having regard to the views expressed by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) when he was in a different position. He argued that there should be an improvement in the position of science and the efficiency and productivity of industry.
If we look at the actual achievements in pursuit of those aims, we see that they were not met in practice. Recently, in the House, when answering a Question by the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Charles Morrison), I said that I was not satisfied with the progress that my Department had made so far. I do not need to be reminded about this. But I am positive that it is a far better record than we had for a few years previously. That is not the issue before us. The organisation and scope of the Ministry of Technology has been criticised. Let us look at this and see how it compares with the organisation of technology outlined by the previous Government.
I do not say this in the spirit of criticism, but simply in the form of comparison. Our organisation derives essentially from two main requirements. First, to get the Government's resources in civil industrial science, the A.E.A., the N.R.D.C. and the industrial side of the former D.S.I.R. mobilised and co-ordinated under a single Minister. Second, to put under sponsorship of the same Minister certain industries which are particularly important for technological advance by British industry. There will be others—there is no doubt about that—because the very nature of the function calls for the application of technology to a much wider range of industries than those I have mentioned.
In comparison, the proposed organisation of the Opposition when in Government was somewhat different. It did nothing to achieve the concentration of the Government's powers and resources. Had we followed the pattern set out by the previous Government, we would have had two independent authorities—the A.E.A. and an Industrial Research and


Development Authority—under one Minister, the N.R.D.C. under another, and industrial sponsorship in certain closely related industries diversified under a series of Ministers. In the event, it was not possible to see whether this would be workable in practice, because the election overtook it, and a change of Government took place.
So it must be a matter of conjecture whether it would have been an advantage. But I cannot think that it would have been a convenient arrangement which enabled two independent authorities under different Departments to let research and development contracts in industry. Our feeling was that, however elaborate the arrangements for that co-ordination, it could not be as effective as having them under my Ministry. Nor did we favour the idea of putting under the Secretary of State for Education and Science responsibilities that ranged through primary, secondary and tertiary education to all kinds of research, including medical and agricultural research and all Government activities in support of industrial research including hydraulics, sewage and fire and, for good measure, work on nuclear reactors. That was the proposal prior to the election. Certainly the Secretary of State for Education and Science would have been a busy man.
Our view, on the other hand, was that the importance of guiding and stimulating the application—and I emphasise that word, because we have said it so frequently—of technology in industry was such as to require a separate department under a single Minister. You have in fact made quite clear at times during your speech this afternoon that you have also been thinking along the lines of a co-ordinated industrial Ministry.

The Chairman: The right hon. Gentleman must address the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) through the Chair.

Mr. Cousins: I am sorry. It has been my practice to speak to some of the right hon. Gentlemen and hon. Gentlemen opposite so many times in other places. So the effort there was obviously directed towards the same kind of end. But this was in Opposition; it was not in Government. The idea of co-ordinating the efforts and making one

Ministry centrally responsible was the least and the last of the things that received attention. Substantial advantages are already flowing from the concentration of the efforts for which I am responsible, and I have illustrated them often.
First we are taking advantage of the grouping of the A.E.A., the Government's industrial research Laboratories and the N.R.D.C. The Managing Director of the N.R.D.C. has become a member of the Board of the A.E.A. and his experience will be especially valuable in the extension of the Authority's activities outside the nuclear field, which is now possible under the Science and Technology Act.
Second—and most important—it is only right that the Government should be able to engage the resources and expertise of these two statutory corporations in activities which are deemed to be in the national interest. There is no conflict here with the corporations' autonomy. Under our present organisation I am able to call on the unparalleled technical resources of the A.E.A., and the expertise of the N.R.D.C. in patent and commercial negotiations to assist us in areas where there is urgent need for action. I will go into this in more detail later in my speech. It is sufficient at present to mention the A.E.A.s new responsibilities for desalination work and timely assistance, on a large scale, which is being negotiated between N.R.D.C. and computer manufacturers, so that we have a joint, co-ordinated effort of the industry and the corporation, and get the value of joint effort. In both instances, these functions are in co-ordination with the work which is going on in industry and in research establishments supported by Government funds.
In fact, the way in which we are making the fullest use of the A.E.A. and N.R.D.C. exemplifies an approach to this problem which is essentially different from that previously in existence. Contrary to the views which have been expressed, I have never made any attempt to disguise the fact that the task of my Department is a very long-term one. I have been asked a series of questions—and we have been under fire many time, with 42 Questions in all in the short period since I have been able to answer here—along the lines of, "What have you done since last week?". As has been said, there have been times


when I have answered, "I have nothing further to report." It is hardly likely that one is going to have something further to report on a major project in atomic energy, computers, or electronics seven days after being asked the last Question. We have set out to demonstrate that we regard it as a long-term and very valuable task.
I would remind the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wallasey that in his last position as Minister of Transport he initiated many desirable studies—some he did not initiate, but some he did—which have not yet come to fruition. Some will. Therefore I suggest to him he should not be too impatient about a matter which is deep and detailed—detailed to the extent that the right hon. Member himself is taking what he has described as a sabbatical year to learn what it is all about. I have in my hand a little box, containing two micro-miniaturised circuits. The right hon. Gentleman for Wallasey is learning whether such things are of use to British industry. Therefore, I would suggest that to pretend that my Ministry should have reached a conclusion in every direction in a few months of operation is not even being fair to the right hon. Member himself.
The right hon. Gentleman has suggested he is going to America and to Japan to see what is going on. I wish I could. Part of my duties is to be in the House instead of being in America or Japan or elsewhere to see what they are doing. When the right hon. Member comes back, probably he will tell us. He will not have to read from a book published in 1964 about the period 1951 to 1961, but will tell us what is happening now and whether we are starting to catch them up in the way we hope we are.
Since it is accepted that much of our work is long-term, we must not neglect the opportunities for doing short-term work.
The Opposition claim that the Ministry of Technology has achieved nothing since it was set up. Let us examine its record, starting with the A.E.A. and N.R.D.C. Both these corporations are now in a more confident position than they have been for years. This is natural in the light of recent developments which I will cover in the course of my review. They are both excellent organisations,

and are now enjoying an opportunity to use to the full their considerable resources to stimulate technological progress in industry. The right hon. Member for Wallasey made the point that one of the major things that help to bring progress is the establishment of confidence. We have done this. We have made the N.R.D.C. see that it has the backing, I hoped of the House, I am certain of the Government, but from some of the comments that were made on the last occasion on which I was at the Despatch Box, I thought of the House.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: While the right hon. Gentleman is on the subject of the Atomic Energy Authority, is he going to say anything about his recent visit to Dounreay and the future of the fast breeder reactor?

Mr. Cousins: It is my next point. Starting off with atomic energy, let the Committee consider the present position of the A.E.A. One of the most encouraging developments for the Authority and for the country in recent years has been the success of the tender for an advanced gas-cooled reactor submitted by Atomic Power Construction Ltd. for Dungeness B. Contract negotiations between the C.E.G.B. and the firm are expected to be concluded later this month, and a considerable amount of information on the technical and economic features of the successful design will then be issued.
Tributes have already been paid, deservedly, to the Atomic Energy Authority for their highly successful development of the A.G.R. system and to the industrial group concerned for their design for Dungeness B. The Authority and my Ministry will lose no opportunity of advancing the claims of the A.G.R.; and the nuclear industry also must, in its own interests and that of the nation, do everything possible to seek out business abroad wherever this is, in fact, possible. This we regard as a matter of great urgency and of essential need. Competition will be very keen—there is is no doubt about that—but there is a great opportunity and a great challenge here, and it must not be missed.
Nuclear power has turned the corner, and it has been possible to demonstrate that energy can be produced more cheaply by this means than by any other means. No other country in the world is better


placed than our country to secure a substantial share of the business in nuclear power stations and equipment which is bound to arise soon. This is something which is not generally known, but it is in our interest that it should be known: this country has more nuclear generating capacity installed than the rest of the world put together. There is too much denigrating of what we are able to do. Some of it is our own fault. But in this instance we have sent out to date about 1½ times as much electricity from nuclear reactors as the rest of the world put together. But we cannot afford to slacken. We must make progress.
I do not wish to take any credit from the Opposition. As I have said, I did not start with the idea of having a critical debate, "You did this and you did not do that". A lot was not done. Some things were done and many things need to be done. But they need to be done together, and I hope that at the end of the debate we shall emphasise that they need to be done together.
Fast reactor development is an important feature of the Authority's programme. These are reactors for the future, as far as one can see at this stage. They can produce electricity more cheaply than can any of the conventional stations or any other form of station, either conventional or nuclear. Moreover, they will use plutonium derived from the operations of existing types of reactor and they will be able to breed new fuel. This means greater economy and conservation in the use of uranium.
The Dounreay Experimental Establishment has worked very satisfactorily, and the next stage is the construction of a prototype. During the next few months the authority will be submitting to me their proposals for a prototype fast reactor. When they have done so, the Government will as soon as possible announce their decision whether the project should proceed and, if so, where the prototype is to be built. This will be brought to the House as soon as possible.
I have recently paid a visit to the Scottish area and to other parts of the Atomic Energy Authority Establishment to consider possible sites. Recently I visited Dounreay, and there was considerable pressure that the reactor should

be built in Scotland. Some would like it to be at Dounreay and some would like it to be at Chapel Cross. The fact is that I cannot yet say where the prototype ought to be put. Whatever we do about it, the claims of Dounreay, Chapel Cross and indeed anywhere else will be considered fully, having regard to what I hope the Committee will also think should be factors in the consideration. I am sure that my colleagues in the Government and on these Benches will think that we must have a great regard for the social and economic consequences of where we put the prototype.
It is quite obvious that the creation of stations of this kind is an expensive proposition in the first instance. Much money is involved in building a huge power plant. May I make this appeal. I hope that there will be as much enthusiasm for projects of this kind when we consider the money side of it as when we consider the theory and the social factors.
I turn to the Atomic Energy Authority's Trading Fund. The Authority's main task under the Act of 1954 was to promote research into various applications of atomic energy and to manufacture special material for use in atomic energy programmes. Production activities have grown substantially in the last few years, especially the manufacture of nuclear fuel elements for sale to the electricity generating authorities and for export. Altogether the Authority's sales of fuel elements, electricity and isotopes amount to some £30 million a year.
Commercial operations on this scale are difficult to accommodate within the structure of annual Parliamentary grants. Those who have been in Government, some of them a great deal longer than I have, will appreciate what I am saying. If one is not a free trading entity but is subject to Parliamentary grants it is difficult to take immediate decisions on monetary matters in a commercial sense. We have therefore, with the agreement of the House, freed the Atomic Energy Authority. They now more nearly resemble the position of other public enterprises or private operation. Since 1st April they have had their commercial operations separated from the rest of their activities. These are organised in a trading fund. The fund will retain depreciation provisions and trading surpluses


to enable it to build up its own reserves, to meet contingencies and normal capital investment requirements. This will enable them to compete in the commercial markets for the type of products which they produce.
In pursuing their commercial policy the Authority have recently concluded agreements with German and Italian companies for the manufacture of fuel elements in Europe. These agreements are intended to ensure that the Authority play a full part in fuel element business in Europe, against all competition. They have unrivalled experience and facilities for fuel element manufacture and they are determined to exploit these advantages to the full.
The Science and Technology Act, under which the changes in the organisation of civil science were given statutory effect, contains a very important provision on which I should like to speak for a moment. Under it, the Minister of Technology has power to authorise the Authority to undertake research and development in fields other than that of atomic energy. The idea, of course, is to utilise the vast resources and experience of the Authority to further the interests of British technology. Directives have already been given to the Authority requiring steps to be taken in their research effort in the use of centrifuges for medical research, aspects of the European Space Research Organisation satellite, and desalination.
I should like to emphasise the importance which we—and, I hope, everybody else—attach to the subject of desalination. We tend to think sometimes that the difficulties exist only in those countries where they have vast areas of unwatered sands which they hope to bring to cultivation. That is not so. In many parts of this country the water shortage is becoming one of the main problems. We hope that we shall be able to meet the problem. Every effort of improving the techniques and economics of desalination processes are being investigated.
The Authority will work very closely with industry on the improvement of present techniques and will also press on with the development of new ones. I say "with industry" because British industry has already supplied most of the large-scale desalination plants throughout the

world. The possibilities of using nuclear power for the dual purpose of generating electricity and supplying steam to desalination plants is under active consideration. Altogether a programme is being studied which will cost £1½ million in the next three years.
May I turn in some detail to the National Research Development Corporation? The right hon. Member for Wallasey suggested that we should not talk about the past but should talk about why we have not done things. But the Act is a framework in which we must examine what we intend to do. As the Committee knows, legislation was introduced early in the Session to raise the limit of advances to the National Research Development Corporation from £10 million to £25 million. The Development of Inventions Act, 1965, became law early last month. This increase reflects our belief that the Corporation can and will contribute significantly to our continuing need for the new techniques, processes and machinery, both for our industries at home and to sell abroad.
In addition to raising the ceiling on advances, the new Act gives the Government Departments power to ask the Corporation to undertake development on their behalf and at their expense. This is an important change, which will enable the Government to make full use of the knowledge and experience which has been built up in the Corporation over the last 16 years and to avoid duplication of effort. The new Act also gives the Corporation additional flexibility in making arrangements to share with industry the risks of novel developments, and in negotiating terms for the recovery of its investment appropriate to the circumstances of particular cases.
The growing volume of new proposals which has recently come forward to the Corporation is evidence that industry is becoming increasingly appreciative of the facilities offered by this unique institution. N.R.D.C. has taken on a number of new staff and is reorganising to meet the increased demands made on it by the continuing and unprecedented influx of important and interesting new projects.
Perhaps the most important development, however, is the change of atmosphere. Under the former Administration—I say this without any offence at all—


N.R.D.C. was a slightly awkward appendage of the Board of Trade, whilst the other main instrument of Government activity in industrial research was a completely separate Department, D.S.I.R. We have brought these activities together in my Ministry. We are associating N.R.D.C. closely with our discussions at all levels. We discuss with the Corporation projects which we have in mind. The Corporation discusses with us proposals it has in mind. We do not impinge upon the Corporation's authority. Its autonomy has been protected. But there is a new attitude of self-confidence and self-respect and the Corporation feels that it has the opportunity to make a full contribution now to the modernisation of Britain.
The Corporation has been in the news in the last few months concerning the support of one of its projects, the hovercraft. The Corporation has supported the hovercraft from 1958. It is no secret that the hovercraft is the largest of the Corporation's enterprises to date. The hovercraft has developed from an experimental model to a commercial craft in six years. There were many periods of time when there was deep criticism of the Corporation's continued support for this project. However, the Corporation pioneered this venture and it now looks as if the project is coming to a stage of real commercial exploitation. The optimism about the hovercraft is apparently now justified.
Some ferry services using the smaller craft are already running. I understand that firm orders are in for at least 17 and possible orders for some eight more. The cross-Channel hovercraft service has been announced for next year. There is interest from all over the world in this wonderful British invention. The new product—the S.R.N.4—is working a revolution in the matter of movement over considerable and medium distances of water.

Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why in the culmination of this very successful enterprise foreign Powers—the Swedes and others—will be allowed to carry out the actual operation from British shores?

Mr. Cousins: At this point in time I have no authority to make anyone do it. I would have liked to have made someone

do it, but I have not yet the authority to say to a British firm, "You go and run a hovercraft service". I have taken every opportunity recently to express my point of view, and I shall continue to do so. There is another aspect about which we must be careful. We must not give the impression that the Corporation is not producing things for export. If an industry is in fact capable of producing something which a foreign company starts up and makes a success of, it will at least help us in our export trade. However, I shall resent it if they come into our market and take all the fruits of our efforts.

Sir A. V. Harvey: I do not attach any blame to the right hon. Gentleman for what has happened. As he has referred to this subject, however, may I say that I should have thought that the Government ought to bring pressure or persuasion or coercion to bear to ensure that this is a British effort in the final organisation of it.

Mr. Cousins: I am sure that this side of the Committee will take note of the words used by the hon. Gentleman—"pressure", "coercion", and so on. Seriously, I am very interested in trying to assist the use of this by British organisations. The new S.R.N.4—the 150 tonner—is able to move at 70 knots and tackle waves of up to 15 feet. They know that it can tackle waves to a greater depth than that, but they are prepared to give it commercial propaganda at 15 ft. It will be able to carry up to 250 passengers and about 30 cars, or a greater number of passengers without a car ferry service attached to it. This is a good thing. The more frequently we say this, the better I shall like it.
Turning to computers, as the Committee knows, because it has been referred to today, we drew up a programme of action. We ought to consider the use of more computers by British industry. The discussion sometimes varies between it being said that I ought to stimulate the British computer industry and that I ought to stimulate British industry to use computers. I am sometimes asked to say which is my intention. I do not think that the two things are alternatives. I feel that there is a great need for the growth of the use of British computers here.
The right hon. Member for Wallasey made this point when he compared our figures with those of America. There is no doubt but that there is a need for a great growth in the use of computers. I do not think that anybody will be likely to dispute this, but the Government are themselves convinced that a flourishing British computer industry is necessary so that the techniques which this industry employs shall remain right here in the United Kingdom side by side with the other industries with which the computer industry works, because control processes are becoming a very important part of the computer industry.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: The right hon. Gentleman may know that B.O.A.C. is contemplating purchasing computers. There is a suggestion that it may purchase American computers, as opposed to what B.E.A. has done. B.E.A. has British computers. Will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence to ensure that B.O.A.C. takes British computers?

Mr. Cousins: This is a matter which has been drawn to my attention. We are considering this. One of the great problems is that B.O.A.C. has commercial autonomy in the same way as most other organisations have. Under the last Administration it was allowed, without any opposition, to purchase American computers. It is talking of maintaining that association within the existing system. Nevertheless, we are considering what can be done about this.

Mr. Godfrey Lagden: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way again. Would he not agree that if in the case he has mentioned the advanced computer machinery which has been purchased is an advantage to the industry it would be well advised to continue with it, as the whole object of the exercise of the computer industry in itself is to produce for British industry the best tools to hand?

Mr. Cousins: The situation is quite a difficult one to answer in a "Yes" or "No" way. If we were to pursue this through, we could justify the purchase from elsewhere of almost every piece of equipment we have in this country. I am sure that this would not be the wish of either side of the Committee. If we are

not producing equipment which can satisfactorily cope with the job, that is the issue which needs tackling, or we may find ourselves without any of our industries.
The right hon. Member for Wallasey asked me whether we were giving effect to this policy and whether the Computer Advisory Unit was doing a job of work. I am sure that it is. The right hon. Gentleman then began to talk in terms of money. I am not intending today to give any money figures, for a reason which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will accept as soon as I outline it. The review of the computer requirements of universities and research councils has been completed and is about to be brought forward to me for action. It would be quite improper for me to be talking about computer costs when the report has not yet reached me. We made the proposal that our five-year programme should start off at the rate of £2 million a year, and we gave the House of Commons the impression that it would be a rising programme. It was inevitably bound to be a rising programme, but the extent to which it rises is dependent on the report and on the reactions of all the departments, both research and education, to their programme requirements. If the right hon. Member for Wallasey accepts this point of view, at a later stage, I hope not too long from now, I hope to be able to tell the House the position as to the Flowers Report.
More important than these specific measures, however, which should be acceptable to both sides of the Committee, is the effect which our determination to stimulate the growth of computers is having on the computer industry itself I have seen ample evidence of this in my discussions with the industry and in visits I have paid to its establishments, some of which the right hon. Gentleman has also visited either at the same time or at different times. There is a new sense of confidence, both in the production of current equipment and in the development of new ranges. ICT's 1900 series, despite all the criticisms I have had about British computers, is a good computer. For example, it has been successfully launched and the company is planning a programme of production


of a computer a day, which is the kind of production we have not had so far in this country. At this rate, the company could supply all Britain's computers in about six months' production. This is the kind of approach which we have not had before.
I turn now to the subject of machine tools. I made a statement to the House setting out proposals in connection with the machine tool industry. These included action to promote research and development through the National Research Development Corporation, an important programme of work at the National Engineering Laboratory, a new study of the cyclical pattern of machine tool ordering, a programme of work at the universities and the establishment of an expert machine tool unit in my own headquarters. The implementation of these proposals is now in progress and it is clear that they have already had a good response and have aroused a great deal of interest in the industry.
Since I announced a month ago that we wanted to increase development contracts and place pre-production orders for new machine tools, there has been an encouraging response. My Department has received about 20 approaches from firms already, including four relating to pre-production orders, and these are now being examined. In case we have any more questions about how many times since last week we have bought a machine tool, I hope that the Committee will accept that part of my responsibility is to examine projects and to ensure that money spent on development in the industry is well spent, bringing material advantages to the economy.
There has also been an increase in the number of projects for new machine tools submitted to the N.R.D.C. The criticism has been levelled at us that we failed to deal with this question of cyclical ordering in the machine tool industry. This is not surprising. We came to office and we examined the facts and we had a report from a Committee and we set about putting our proposals before the industry in an attempt to deal with this problem. But many experts over the last 50 years have applied themselves to this question and none has brought forward a generally acceptable and satisfactory solution which has maintained

the flow in the machine tool industry. We hope to do something about this, but certainly not in the next two or three days.
It has been wrongly suggested that in my statement on 14th June I dismissed the possibility of Government action to deal with this problem. What I said was that I was not at present convinced that Government assistance was needed to underwrite manufacturers' building for stock. I am not opposed to the possibility of other Government action, as should have been apparent from my announcement that I was setting up a Working Party to examine the cyclical problem further. The membership of the Working Party is now complete. It includes representatives of the manufacturers, the trade unions, the users of machine tools, Government Departments and the City. I have asked the Working Party to address itself to its task with urgency, with a view to submitting an interim report as soon as possible.
The Opposition have said quite often and have told me again today that I am holding a sword—not the Sword of Damocles this time—over the heads of the industry. I wonder whether the right hon. Member for Wallasey would not prefer me to say that I intend to nationalise it so that we can have something to row about. It is not an argument with the industry. People in the industry do not believe that our proposals are designed to create an atmosphere in which we can proceed to nationalise the machine tool industry. We said in our programme that it could include the use of Government Departments. This is still so. I would not hesitate to tell the House of Commons about any measures which we thought appropriate. If we do, I will tell the House, but until we do, for the Lord's sake let us encourage the machine tool industry to go on manufacturing the kind of things needed in British industry. Let us stimulate its confidence by the Opposition's confidence and our confidence.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: Are we to understand that although in the Labour Party's policy at the last election the possibility of nationalising the machine tool industry, amongst others, was visualised, at present the right hon. Gentleman has no intention whatsoever


of nationalising it but still reserves the right to do so should he change his mind?

Mr. Cousins: In the proposals which we put in front of the industry I have suggested methods by which we think we can stimulate and aid the production of machine tools and it includes measures which have not been tried before. If the industry will not and cannot—I use "will not" because it is partly the responsibility of the industry to do this—it will be necessary to consider what other steps the Government may need to take. I do not think that I need to declare my political allegiance to the principle of public ownership in order to make the industry do it. Everyone knows that I am a believer in the principle of public ownership. It has nothing to do with my approach to this industry, and I hope that it will get on with the job.
I should like to say something about the organisation of the Ministry because this is one of the problems with which we have been faced. Anyone who ever had to tackle the question of creating a new Department will know something about these problems. We had to set up an organisation of scientists, engineers and administrators. It embodies, in addition to the industrial elements of the former D.S.I.R. Headquarters, certain important new features. Of these I would mention in particular the special groups which have been set up to study the problems of selected industries, including the four for which the Ministry of Technology is the sponsor Department, and also the question of engineering standards, about which I shall have something to say later.
Our build-up has been slower than I would have wished, mainly because of the difficulty of recruitment. In most of these spheres there is as much difficulty in obtaining top scientists and administrators for Government Departments as there is elsewhere and this is something which we need to consider. As for regional organisation, the previous D.S.I.R. had regional offices in Cardiff, Edinburgh and Newcastle. This organisation is being expanded to conform with the Government's regional plans under which there will be eight regional centres. Our regional offices will encourage technical development in industry and

will promote more effective co-operation between Government, academic and industrial establishments concerned with research and development.
I stress these regional developments, and I am sure that the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) will endorse them because he was one of the people who spoke strongly in support of regional progress particularly in association with the North-East. I do not know whether people asked him as often as they ask me how fast progress was being made.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: Whilst I share the right hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for all this, may I point out that he has taken over almost everything that I have done and claimed the credit for it himself?

Mr. Cousins: I am not sure if the right hon. and learned Gentleman should join me in receiving the complaints or whether we should share the praises.
In regional organisation we want to get down to the grass roots. We hope that as our regional organisation spreads and becomes better known it can provide a valuable point of contact and a two-way traffic both for industry and ourselves. We need this. We want to tell industry what we are about and we want industry to tell us its problems. One of the complaints recently was that there was a dissociation between various branches of Government establishments and industry. We are trying to remedy this.
I have tried to deal with the whole problem of industrial centres. They are centred mainly on colleges of advanced technology and on regional and area technical colleges. Each sector has one, or more, industrial liaison officers who is responsible for maintaining contact with local firms and particularly with the smaller firms to promote greater use of existing scientific and technical knowledge. I believe that these arrangements will greatly improve the sources of advice available to industry and particularly to the small firms which are unable to afford an ambitious research staff of their own and which, as a result, will be brought directly into the stream of modern technology.
I have taken over from the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research responsibility for administering grants to the industrial research associations. Since April, fresh grant terms have been given to six research associations and we have launched three further projects under the earmarked grants scheme. One of these deals with the computer programming of factory operations in rubber manufacture and another with in-line process control in the food industry.
In particular, we have increased the maximum grant available to the Production Engineering Research Association from £100,000 to £195,000, and that to the Machine Tool Industry Research Association from £80,000 to £120,000. These grants should benefit a wide range of industry. We have also offered to the Scientific Instrument Research Association a special grant of 300 per cent. of industrial income devoted to industrial instrumentation and control work. We regard this as a special field in which we need great assistance, and it was pleasing to hear that some hon. Members opposite think that we should pour more money out than we have up to now. In this way, the Association will form a focal point for this type of work in the research association movement as a whole, which will be a valuable step forward and hasten the application of better process control and automation in industry. The Committee will have noted that some of the grants which I have mentioned are designed to go to research associations whose work has a widespread impact on the manufacturing side of industry.
One special responsibility assigned to my Department relates to engineering standards. Standards are of the greatest importance to our export trade, and our aim must be to see that British standards incorporate the most modern technology and also that, so far as possible, they are aligned with internationally agreed standards. A special group within my Ministry is working with the Board of Trade and the British Standards Institution in promoting an important programme for the introduction of the new series of metric standards foreshadowed in the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 26th May. We are working

also on the important fields of standards of measurement and improving arrangements for certification and approval.
British industry itself has been pressing for a number of years that we should go over to this system. Before we made our approach for a decision to be taken on the principle of intent regarding metric standards, we had consultations with industry, and industrialists were quite clear in their opinion that it was a necessary step forward. These are not points of marginal significance, as many hon. Members associated with industry will recognise. Our ability to sustain an export trade in engineering goods will be greatly embarrassed unless we are able to do it because 50 per cent. of our trade is with countries which accept and maintain metric standards. It is necessary for us also to study the standards and certification regulations and legislation in countries with which we trade. This, too, is being undertaken by the Ministry.
Now, manpower. The Ministry of Technology has been given an important function in connection with the status of the engineering profession. Half our exports are in the form of products of the engineering industries. These industries are vital to our future. To compete effectively with fierce competition from other countries, old and new, exploiting modern technology and modern sophisticated processes to the limit, they need an increasing share of the ablest men coming forward from our schools, technical colleges and universities. At the moment they are not getting enough. They are getting some good men—again, one wants not to belittle the men who are coming forward—but they need more.
The sixth form boy, as we know from a recent publication of the Oxford University Department of Education, is impressed by a career in science or medicine. But the proportion of boys and girls of the highest ability who want to make engineering their career is too small. Two years ago, a valuable report was published with the Report of the Advisory Council for Scientific Policy. This covered a series of proposals designed to raise the status of engineers. We are setting up an organisation to follow up all these points. We have also commissioned a study through the Tavistock Institute on the use which


industry makes of the engineers which it gets. We are co-operating closely with the Engineering Institutions Joint Council on this subject.
Inevitably, this is another long-term task involving changes of social attitude. It is encouraging to know that, nowadays, so many people are aware that the problem exists and are publicising the imperative need for a solution. There is a great responsibility on industry here. May I issue a word of warning to us all. We do not want to repeat the mistakes of 50 or 60 years ago when there was a huge drive to bring men of skill in the sciences into industry but many men came along only to find that industry was not ready to receive them and did not want them. Certain sections of the chemical industry and others suffered acutely over a number of years on this account. We must co-ordinate the need with the provisions we make for the supply of men. In this connection, I have, in talking to British industrialists, pointed out that the higher up the ladder of control in industry engineers come the more likely will people be to recognise what the situation demands. If a managing director is an engineer, he is more likely to recognise the value of engineers to his organisation than if he has no association whatever with engineering.

Mr. John Page: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the result of the survey by the Tavistock Institute is likely to be published? Will it be in two or three years or one year?

Mr. Cousins: Quicker than that. We have set one of our own people the responsibility for pushing it forward. A short time ago, I said in answer to a Question in the House that I am an impatient man and I push everyone to get on with things—even if I do not build computers every week. The task will be completed as speedily as we can because we regard it as most important. We think it important also that, in the interim period, every one of us should emphasise the need for engineers to be in industry.
Now, the social consequences. There is an equally important point here because this is a problem affecting men and women. Our efforts in advancing technology will not succeed if we do not take into account the consequences for

those whose work may be radically altered or abolished by the changes which will come. Otherwise, the changes we need will be suspect and resisted, not being welcomed as they should be. The restrictive practice attitude, which was referred to by the right hon. Gentleman in passing, with an oblique effort to give it to me as a responsibility, is, in fact, the responsibility of us all. We all tend to adopt it in our own separate ways, but we notice the other man. But, unless we approach these things in the right way, looking forward to change and a new order of society and recognising the social consequences which it will bring to people, we shall fail. However cleverly we debate or reach conclusions here in the House of Commons, this aspect of the matter must be kept in the forefront of our minds.
A few days ago, in company with the right hon. Member for Wallasey, I visited Wolvercote Mill of the Oxford University Press. It is interesting to know the details of a new mechanised and computer-controlled system which has been installed there. It is the first fully automated paper mill in the world. In the early stage there was an investigation of the human aspects of the workpeople's situation and their working environment, and the management was assisted in this by studies undertaken with financial help from the D.S.I.R. The company took pains to introduce a productivity and cost reduction sharing scheme in order to ensure that the workers would have a fair share of any benefits which would flow from the introduction of computer control. Also there was the closest collaboration between the manufacturers of the computer system, Elliott Automation Limited, and the Oxford University Press from the initial planning right through to the operational stage. People were sent from the printing company to the computer company, and vice versa, in order that each should know the other's problems. The computer firm said, "We do not know about paper making but we know about control systems", and the printing company said, "We know about paper making but not about automation and control systems". So they planned the thing together.
The results so far have been extremely encouraging—increased output, better


quality production, higher wages and no redundancy. I understand that the whole cost of the project is expected to be recovered in less than two years. I hope that this will be noted especially by managements of small firms. They can put money in to mechanise and automate and achieve a satisfactory result. This was another of the projects backed by the N.R.D.C.
This is part of the record of the activities which we have undertaken during our period of existence. Of course, I am aware that there are many which we have not fully dealt with. I am aware that in our examination of, for example, telecommunications and electronics, we have not a great deal of progress yet to report. I am aware also that one hon. Member opposite said that I ought not to rush into decisions about the electronics and telecommunications industries, suggesting that this was a most complicated matter, that our studies ought to be deep and detailed and that, when we came to conclusions, they should be supportable. That we intend to do.
I do not intend to come every few weeks with a report to the House in order to prove that I am still working. I claim, I hope with justification in the light of the facts, that my Ministry has already a solid basis of achievement over a wide range of activities. I am satisfied that it has a vital and important part to play in the future development and modernisation of industry.
It is not offensive to say that British industry in some instances needs assistance and modernisation. I am not decrying industry in saying that. We must not forget that many sections of British industry are ahead of the rest of the world. However, many others need aid to help them get there. Whether we like it or not, we are moving into a new world. Everyone in science and technology knows what can be accomplished. I hope that politicians—and for that purpose I include myself—do not regard it as simply a debating plank. It is something that we must face and I think that we should be prepared to help it rather than hinder it.

5.31 p.m.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: If I have any castigations to deliver, I

hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Technology will not take them personally because I believe that where there has been misunderstanding in the public mind of what he was going to be able to do in his job that misunderstanding is not his fault but the fault of those who draw up the policy which visualised a Ministry of Technology and gave the impression that it would be able to do a great deal that the right hon. Gentleman himself now openly admits that he has not had time fully to decide upon or has not yet the powers to do.
I have always thought that we should keep science and technology out of party politics as far as is reasonably possible. Obviously, if the question of ownership arises, then automatically the issue becomes one of party politics and one cannot help that. But in the work of science and in deciding on subjects of research we should always keep party politics to the minimum.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that there is a very great danger, in dealing with this subject, of getting so fascinated by the new types of machinery and the various devices designed to help industry and provide it with new tools that we get carried away with the sophistication that it entails and forget those who have to employ the means. Unless we have the right approach in the minds of men at all levels of industry and in Government, particularly in the Civil Service, we shall not be able to use as we should all the tools that are now coming out in the most sophisticated form to help industry.
I think that the right hon. Gentleman will admit that we have not unduly pressed him so far to declare himself before he was ready to do so. I asked him before Easter to tell us a little about a certain order dealing with the Atomic Energy Authority. He then said that he would like to wait. He must expect us before the Summer Recess to question him about many of these matters.
But all these things which are concerned with his Ministry will never be done as well as they should be done unless the Government Departments concerned are manned by people who have the right approach to life, by people who are themselves, in taking big decisions, approaching the whole question of modernisation and automation of industry


in the right way. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman was right, when he took office, to try to learn what his job was to be, but I hope he will avoid the temptation to try to dazzle us with the end products of what has been a continuing process over many years. This, I think, is the great error of the policy upon which the Prime Minister has depended.
A picture was painted before the last election of something that was rapidly grinding to a halt in industry when, on the contrary, there had been a steady increase of Government activity in science and technology. The right hon. Gentleman, like us all, is now reaping the benefit of what has been done by the D.S.I.R. over the years.
The D.S.I.R. has now submitted its last report to the Minister, and through him to Parliament. I would therefore like to take this opportunity to congratulate those who have worked over the years in the D.S.I.R. and have achieved such amazing results. We all know how it grew up. We have read Sir Solly Zuckerman's account of how it emerged and also the Trend Report. They have told the history of this remarkable Department. We can all rejoice that many of those who have given such devoted service to it will continue under new labels in the right hon. Gentleman's Ministry and in various bodies for which he is responsible.
Whatever we call the organisation, we all owe these men, as men, a very great debt. I hope we shall always remember that if we had not had the ability and dedication to the public wealth of these men over the years we should not have achieved the success we have, any more than we shall achieve the future success that we must get. If we ignore the fact that it is men first of all who really matter and that, if we choose the wrong men for the wrong job and do not have men who can interpret, use and encourage others to use modern tools in industry then, however brilliant and sophisticated those tools may be, we shall not get the results that otherwise we could get.

Mr. Dalyell: Those who have debated this subject with the hon. Gentleman know how fair-minded he is. It is very well for him to talk about injecting science into the Civil Service, but what precisely has he in mind? Is he suggesting that there

should be a scientific sub-committee of the Public Accounts Committee? Is there not an onus upon him to specify rather than generalise?

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I know that the hon. Gentleman is a great enthusiast on this subject. I ask him to contain himself long enough to allow me to make my speech, and I will answer his question. He may recall that in October, 1961, the Labour Party Conference adopted "Signposts For The Sixties". At the time, some of my hon. Friends and I, together with some members of my party outside the House, were working on a report which we published just before the Trend Report came out. In that report, we pressed this very theme of what we thought ought to happen in Government Departments. I will quote from one of our major recommendations.
If the Minister has not a copy of our report, perhaps I may have the privilege of sending him one. We sat for about two and a half years before the report came out and we took evidence from those dealing with the sort of departments the right hon. Gentleman is responsible for and with industry as well. Our principal conclusion was:
… the pace of technological progress and the pattern of research and development in Britain, which are crucial to our economic future, are already heavily influenced not only or even principally by specifically scientific policies but by almost every other aspect of Government economic and financial policy. This influence on the country's science and technology, which has so far been for the most part unconsciously exercised, is in need not so much of extension as of being recognised and deliberately directed. The Government should consider its policies not only in terms of the immediate purpose of a particular policy, but also in terms of the indirect impact of that policy in influencing the technological future of British industry. This will involve a much more detailed appraisal of the industrial repercussions of policy than the present machinery of Government can provide.
We went on:
We recommend that every Government Department with industry should have a new kind of 'scientific-economic staff' to act as a forward policy planning unit and to advise the Minister on the technical and industrial implications of the Department's future policy plans, to gather economic and technical information from the relevant industries, to apply it to the specific aspects of the Department's work and generally to provide a technical intelligence service to the Department in formulating its future requirements and considering the developments of its policy.


I am sorry to have wearied the Committee with a long quotation, but I hope that that is partly the answer to the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and I hope that it has conveyed to the Minister, if he was not already aware of it, the fact that we in the Conservative Party have been trying to think constructively about what is necessary in the Government machine itself to enable him, or anybody else in his office, to achieve the worthy objectives which he has set.
In all my experience of life, whether as a soldier or in industry or elsewhere, I have always found that if one did not get one's headquarters right, one never succeeded. The right hon. Gentleman is extremely fortunate in being able to draw on the bodies which form his headquarters. But what I am worried about is whether he is getting the co-operation from other Departments which he must get if he is to succeed.
This is where I blame the Prime Minister above all other Ministers, because if a Minister of Technology is to be given the job which the Prime Minister has outlined on more than one occasion, not least explicitly when he spoke to the annual general meeting of the Parliamentary Scientific Committee not long ago, it must be made possible for that Minister to get the co-operation from his Government colleagues which he must have if he is to succeed. This is where the Government are falling down and I have great sympathy with the Minister in his difficulties.
There is one detailed matter on which I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to reply in some detail. In Sir William Penney the Minister has as the head of the Atomic Energy Authority one of the finest scientists and leaders of vital application in industry he could have. I would not wish to suggest, and nor would the Minister, that there should be any undermining of the position of the head of the Atomic Energy Authority, or that the Minister should start to interfere politically. However, in that excellent weekly journal, the New Scientist, and elsewhere, there have been recent reports indicating that there is still a certain potential commercial activity of the Authority which the Minister has not treated as he has treated commercial

activities of the Authority's research division.
Personally, I welcome his decision over the other aspects, but why is he leaving Windscale's reactivation of spent fuel out of this commercial exercise? I understand that there is here a very big potential business building up and that there is the prospect of some very good trade with the Italian equivalent organisation. Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to take Sir William's advice and see whether we can develop this new commercial outlook with a possible extension to other countries? I hope that he will.
For a very long time I have been a believer in what used to be called the Haldane system of Government and science—that the politician was not allowed to intervene too deeply in scientific matters. Over the years—certainly over the last 13 years, whether the right hon. Gentleman likes it or not—the amount of civil research and development sponsored by the Government and industry has rocketed. We have to ask ourselves whether we are getting full value for money. The process has now reached the point where those in charge of authorising this sort of expenditure have to be more qualified so as to know from whom to take advice on a scientific subject. This is becoming increasingly the great problem of Parliamentary control in science.
I am certain that many people now taking these decisions are finding themselves more and more at sea, not knowing what the right answer is and not knowing to whom to turn to get it and, even when they get the answer, probably not comprehending it, simply because they do not think in that vernacular. These are the problems which the Minister should attempt. My sympathies are with him, because if the Prime Minister had meant what he said when he helped to write "Signposts For The Sixties", he would never have allowed the right hon. Gentleman to get into this position.

5.46 p.m.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I have the impression that the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) was being a little unfair about the internal mechanism in Whitehall. Does not the Ministry of Housing and Local Government have an expert planning advisory group, and architects like


Richard Llewelyn Davies, the technically highest qualified people in the land? Does not the Ministry of Public Building and Works also have the highest quality of technical advice? The Department of Education and Science certainly has a formidable array of statisticians and other experts.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman about Parliamentary control. What does seem to me to be essential is that, to be effective, any Select Committee of the House of Commons must have not only the ability to call before it whom it pleases, but also an adequate staff to ensure that it is effective. It is because of this that some of us would recommend that what the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely wishes to achieve can best be effected by extending the present use of the Public Accounts Committee. There should be a small scientific unit working alongside the Comptroller and Auditor-General and his staff, directly responsible to the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons, and paid on the same Vote as the Comptroller and Auditor-General. The Comptroller and Auditor-General might be an administrative primus inter pares.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: One very important Department which the hon. Gentleman left out of the list which I have particularly in mind is the Treasury.

Mr. Dalyell: It so happens that I have with me a book by Samuel Brittan, "The Treasury Under The Tories". I got this book from the Library precisely because I had the same suspicion as the hon. Gentleman. It was my impression that the Treasury was back in a pre-Plowden sort of Gladstonian era in which it looked after candle ends. Having read this account of how the Treasury works—and I give credit to the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling), because it seems that he put through some very important Treasury reforms—I believe that the Treasury is very different from what it was 10 years ago.
I think that those of us who criticise Whitehall have an obligation to be very specific in saying what we want done. What I want to see is an extension of the Public Accounts Committee and a subcommittee on civil science, armed not only with the Comptroller and Auditor-General's Department, but also with a small staff of its own which would not be

beholden to civil servants and could, perhaps, operate from private industry and the universities and C.A.T.s on the same basis as officers and members of the staff of the Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst—that is, that they do not stay for more than three or five years. This will be the sort of organisation that will help to achieve the things that we both want.
When I was on the benches opposite I never concealed that I had a very high regard for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples), not as a Parliamentary performer, but from what one heard, of his capacity as an operator in Whitehall. I have said to my somewhat astonished constituents that although I had many other criticisms of the Government I always felt that the slogan "Marples Must Go" placed an emphasis in the wrong quarter.
During the right hon. Gentleman's speech I wondered how many of his colleagues would accept what he told us this afternoon. It seemed to indicate a degree of coercion and dragooning that was considerably greater than anything that would be accepted by most of his colleagues on those benches. I am sorry that he is out of the Chamber. Perhaps I should have given him notice that I was going to take up this point, but I had no idea I would be called so soon.
Specifically, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wallasey said that we should extend our scientific relations with Europe, that one of the answers to our problems was to combine our efforts with those of our European partners. This, on the face of it, is an extremely attractive proposition and one to which I wholeheartedly subscribe.
We are entitled to ask some questions, however. Why was it that the right hon. Gentleman's Government were not prepared to support the European High Energy Nuclear Physics Centre at Geneva when they were in need? I cannot forget that about 18 months ago I was the guest of the Director of the High Energy Centre at C.E.R.N. He complained bitterly that time and again, when he wanted to expand, it was, "You British who were dragging your feet". The Italians, the Germans and the French were easier than the British, who were holding back on expansion.
It seems that if we are to talk with any idea of honesty about European


co-operation, then we must be prepared to say that we will not drag our feet. Let us give credit where it is due, in this case to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology and his Department, because when a crisis was reached on the question of storage rings at C.E.R.N., the British Labour Government acted very promptly, even though it was a time of financial difficulty.
Perhaps it lies more in our mouths rather than in the mouths of the Opposition to talk about European co-operation. I wish to follow the example of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Ely in that he was brief and to the point, in order to let other Members get into the debate. I would like to make one rather narrow point. Some weeks ago I was the guest, at their annual conference, of the Association of Teachers in Technical Institutions. At its four and a half day conference at Whitley Bay we talked a great deal on the subject of mathematics. It was their belief that we could not have the sort of technological revolution that we are talking about today unless very many of our average pupils had some grounding in mathematics. Perhaps it is not only a question of pupils, but also a question of apprentices having a grounding in everyday mathematics.
In paranthesis, I would wish to pay tribute to the apprentice training scheme that is operated by my right hon. Friend's Department, in its atomic energy engineering workshop at Dounreay and Chapelcross and elsewhere. I think that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) also knows something of this work at first hand.
It is not very honest to talk about improved training in mathematics unless one is clear about where this instruction is coming from. Although it in no sense does away with teachers in mathematics, I believe that a great deal more use could be made in our country of programmed learning, of teaching machines and audio-visual aids, especially in training in mathematics and technical subjects. The 14 to 18-year-old, if he is to get a grounding in mathematics, needs confidence more than anything else. This often means being allowed to work at his own pace and not being made a fool of in front of other people. A person able to work at his own pace often overcomes

the blockages with which we are all familiar. Branching teaching machines can instil confidence in handling cosines and tangents in pupils.
Perhaps one could leave it at that, and advocate teaching machines, but this would not be facing up to our present problem, because the situation at present is not at all satisfactory. When one writes to the Department of Education and Science on this subject it passes by like the Levite, on the other side of the road, and it sends a long memorandum, signed by Mr. Embling, from which I would like to quote at random.
The County of Oxfordshire has teaching machines being used experimentally in a rural school and the authority is planning to acquire more in 1964–65.
Somerset: The headmaster of a day school for E.S.N. children is studying the use of programmed learning and teaching machines for remedial purposes.
This is all very praiseworthy. I am not deriding it, but it is nothing like the co-ordinated policies we must have if teaching machines and audio-visual aids are to be used at anything like the significant rate which is required. Therefore, my call this afternoon is for co-ordination and some sort of plan. I would not wish to blame the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle), or my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland), for what they have apparently failed to do in the past, because until recently it was true that the programmes were not available and programming is the key to this whole situation.
Now the time has come when the programmes are sufficiently far advanced to have a co-ordinated policy and now is the time for leadership and we look to the Government, to the Ministry of Technology and the Department of Education and Science for the leadership. The purpose of my speech is to propose one of two things, either co-ordination of a consortia of firms involved in making teaching machines, or publicly-owned industry. It is no use asking for leadership without being clear where one is to find the sort of machinery that we still need—the sort of hardware, to use the terminology of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wallasey. It seems that the Government should get together a consortium of the firms that


have already experimented in programmed learning or else it should be the speciality of a small public enterprise, along the lines outlined by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when he was Leader of the Opposition.
My right hon. Friend said:
We believe that research and development contracts should be placed with aircraft, electronics and other firms affected, with groups of young scientists, with Government research establishments and with the technical departments of the universities and colleges of advanced technology, to enable the research workers, the technicians and the productive workers to achieve a whole series of breaks through in the civil field. We have become accustomed to research and development contracts in the military field: it is urgent now to be working out a similar procedure in the civil field.
That was the view of my right hon. Friend when he spoke at Preston on 19th June, 1964. Speeches of Leaders of Oppositions always repay study!

Mr. Lubbock: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that a great deal could be done by the Secretary of State for Education and Science in drawing the attention of all local authorities to the experience of advanced authorities such as Essex which have made great use of programme learning and audio-visual aids?

Mr. Dalyell: That is true, but my worry is that all Ministers are too concerned with what Lord Bridges called the "departmental philosophy" of leaving it to the local authorities. I believe that this problem can no longer be left to local authorities, however big and however progressive. With that qualification, I accept what the hon. Member for Orpington says.
To return to my theme, we should consider setting up, in conjunction with colleges of advanced technology, or perhaps new universities, such as Stirling or Essex, not only research into programme learning but production units. Is it not crucial that, in order to get the right kind of teaching machines which will fit the needs of average pupils, there should be a certain feed-back between those who make them and those who use them? I should be very strongly in favour of allowing teachers who were interested to take part at the production stage. These men and women should participate; the teachers should be involved. These

matters should not be left to mechanics, however able, and engineers, however talented, to give to teachers what they think the teachers should have. This is a two-way traffic, and it is partly on these grounds that my preference would be for a publicly-owned enterprise rather than a private consortium.
There is, however, another reason why I am swayed towards a publicly-owned enterprise. Because of the often legitimate worries of hon. Members opposite, I should go further on this point. Those of us who examined Sebastian de Ferranti and his firm, and those of us who attended the course run by Elliott Automation organised by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Dr. Bray) and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wallasey, have learnt that these great firms, at any rate in relation to fixed price contracts, are not prepared, for reasons of their own, to allow equality of information. The Minister and his Department might care to study the evidence of Sir Richard Way to the P.A.C. on this point.
Last Wednesday morning, the Elliott representatives made it very plain that they would not be party to fixed price contracts if it meant Government Departments or anybody else having access to all their "know-how" and commercial secrets. If we believe that teachers and technicians should have access to these secrets in order to make an optimum product, it seems that a publicly-owned unit would be better, set up in conjunction either with a college of advanced technology or a university.
It is sensible to set up a publicly-owned unit where the products will be bought by the public purse and where there is, perhaps, an assured market. Of course, there would have to be assessors and the matter would have to be dealt with carefully, but the prize is very considerable. The prize is giving to our schools, taking advantage of the economies of scale, instruments which will give confidence in mathematics and in basic technical studies.
The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely spoke about engineers. Those of us who have talked to Mr. Feilden and others on his Committee—doubtless the hon. Gentleman is one of them—recognise that one of the difficulties is that a 16


to 18-year-old will not have that incentive to study engineering as he has to study pure science as science is more extensively taught in schools.
The standard of engineering teaching which is thought a possibility at many of our schools would be immensely improved if the teachers could have at their disposal some of the excellent programmes in engineering developed partly through the Association of Mechanical Engineers with which the hon. Member for Orpington and others of us have recently been associated.
I do not think that teaching machines are the answer to everything. Of course they are not. There is no panacea. But a serious Government policy to co-ordinate the production of teaching machines, constantly improved by feedback from teachers, developed by a university or by a college of advanced technology—and my preference would be for a new university such as Stirling or Essex, or at the National Visual-Aids Centre at Gypsy Hill—would be the sort of organisation which has been developed very effectively in New England where M.I.T. has done remarkable work. A teaching aid production unit is practical politics, it is sensible and it is a crucial factor which would take us into the new technological revolution and give a basic training to those whose working lives will extend to the year 2010 and 2015 without which it is senseless of us in this Chamber to think that we shall get the proper technological take-off that we all want.

6.7 p.m.

Sir Lionel Heald: When the Ministry of Technology was established I remember the Prime Minister saying that the Minister would be concerned with the practical application of science and technical skill in industry. On a later occasion he said that the Minister of Technology had the general duty of guiding and stimulating a great national effort to bring new advanced technological processes into operation.
I wish to concern myself with only one limited aspect of that function and to emphasise the importance of a close connection between the Minister of Technology and the patents system and for him to insist, in his capacity as Minister

of Technology, that that system should be efficient and properly equipped.
I know that this view was in the Minister's mind when he took up his position, because the point was dealt with in the debate on the Development of Inventions Bill on 18th February last. It was a joint effort: the Minister opened the debate and it was answered by the Minister of State, Board of Trade. It is sufficient for me to summarise briefly what the Minister of State said, which was that there must be the fullest co-operation between the Departments to ensure that industry and technical progress can benefit from what was done by inventors who, between them, made at least 40,000 new patent applications every year. It was, in fact, essential to have collaboration betwen the two Departments to that effect.
As far as I know, there has never been any delineation of the respective parts to be played by the Minister and the Board of Trade. It may well be that it is not necessary or desirable that there should be any strict definition. But that statement was warmly welcomed by all those interested in various patent matters. It was assumed that the right hon. Gentleman would be ready to act as a friend and, we hoped, a champion of inventors and patentees whenever it appeared that their interests and rights were not, perhaps, being fully regarded either by the Board of Trade in its anxiety for efficient organisation or by the Treasury when it was concerned with such matters as taxation.
I should like to bring two recent examples briefly to the notice of the Committee and thereafter to ask the Minister quite definitely to give us a clear answer about exactly how far and in what respects he is concerned in the kind of matter that I shall mention. The only Government proposal of any importance concerning our patent system since the General Election has been a proposal for the removal of the Patent Office from London. As far as I have had the opportunity of learning the views of those concerned with patents, almost without exception they regard this as a highly retrograde and undesirable move.
My information is that the proposal was considered during the last Parliament by the previous Government, but certainly no decision was made in favour of the move.


On the contrary, it would seem to have been the other way, because it appears to have been decided in general principle at that time that at least the Patent Office library which is the hub of the whole patent system, the place to which everyone connected with patents has to resort in connection with the filling of applications, the making of final specifications and considerations of possible defences to claims of infringement of patents, all of which matters require ready access to the Patent Office, should remain in London.
In May this year, however, the "grapevine" of the patent system, which I have always found to be a quite efficient organisation, appeared to have become aware that the proposal for removal was once again an active runner. The result was that the Federation of British Industries, the International Chamber of Commerce and other organisations on the industrial side, as well as professional organisations such as the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents, made strong representations against the proposal. It certainly would not be appropriate in this debate to rehearse the various arguments that were put forward; they were various and cogent. I venture briefly to mention only one, which has been the subject of considerable discussion. There have been speeches and discussion about it and there have been references to it in the Press.
I refer to the international repercussions which those with experience of these matters believe would be created by what would appear to be a downgrading of our whole patent system at a moment when the Government have professed—as I am sure the Minister, if he were present, would agree was certainly his objective—that British technology, the application of the brains of inventors, the resources of those who develop inventions and the industrial people who make use of them, should enjoy a very high reputation for Britain in the world and that to move the Patent Office from the capital would have a deplorable effect. I have seen more than one letter or other communication from people in other countries making a strong plea that this should not be done.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Richard Marsh): Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman seriously suggesting that the

act of moving the Patent Office or, presumably, any other office, out of London would downgrade it? Do I correctly understand him to say that offices of any sort outside London are inferior to those in London?

Sir L. Heald: Certainly. It does not mean that the people in the office are inferior, but the view taken by those who are concerned with these matters is that the clear indication would be that it was not regarded as an essential matter to have the Patent Office in the capital city. The practical result would be that a great deal of added inconvenience, real difficulty and delay would be caused to those who were involved with the Office.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary appears to be rather surprised at that and, perhaps, does not agree. I hope that he will believe, as I am sure the Minister would if he were present, that he should be guided in these matters by those with knowledge and experience. Even though it may seem to the hon. Gentleman that what I am saying is surprising, I ask him to believe it to be possible, as someone else was once asked to do—Cromwell, I think—that he may be mistaken.
It would not be right for me to go into it this evening, but I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman should assume this attitude when it was stated by the Board of Trade representative who received the deputation—unfortunately, it was not one of the Ministers; he was a senior officer of the Board of Trade—that he fully recognised the point and regarded it as a serious one and that it would be carefully considered.
That brings me to my next point. It would appear that at least the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has no real knowledge of the subject. All those who are engaged in this important subject—at least, I hope that the Minister of Technology regards the patent system as important; I have always assumed that he did—fear that the Minister has not taken any interest in the matter. Indeed, it is now said that although the deputation, according to my information, was received, as one would expect, with great courtesy and its arguments were listened to carefully, the members of the deputation were asked to deal with a number of detailed points because the gentlemen


at the Board of Trade who were discussing the matter with them apparently confessed that they were not familiar of the operations of the Patent Office. It was, therefore, hoped that the matter would be deferred for further consultation and discussion.
It now appears to be generally felt that the matter is to be treated as a fait accompli and that the weighty considerations put forward by the highly representative deputation have been entirely in vain. I sincerely hope that that is not the case, but I cannot help—

Dr. Bray: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman allow me to intervene?

Sir L. Heald: I am in the middle of a sentence; perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to finish?
It appears from today's OFFICIAL REPORT that in a Written Answer yesterday, the President of the Board of Trade said that
The present accommodation of the Patent Office is inconvenient and dispersed. I am considering the possibility of moving the Office to a place on the outskirts of the Greater London Council Area, or perhaps a little further, but with convenient access from Central London."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th June, 1965; Vol. 716, c. 58.]
That is only one aspect of the matter which was under discussion. Those of us who are concerned with this matter and who regard it as one of the highest importance are extremely concerned to read that Answer, because it appears to be designed to close the matter and to prevent further discussion and consideration of a subject which is engaging daily attention in the correspondence columns of The Times and is also being discussed widely by people who are engaged in industry and who are very interested in patents.

Dr. Bray: That was rather a long sentence. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman speaking on behalf of lawyers, or is he speaking on behalf of scientists? Has he himself observed that the Patent Office library is one of the best scientific libraries anywhere, and that it was because of the practical inconvenience in its use by scientists that the science lending library at Boston Spa had to be set up? Surely if one wants to have the resources of the Patent Office brought into industry, and to help scientists in

industry, Manchester would be a better place than the middle of London?

Sir L. Heald: That may be so. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has quite appreciated the concern I have, which is that the matter should be considered with great care before a decision is made. I believe that the hon. Gentleman would agree with that.
I am most anxious to keep within the rules of order. This is not a debate on the Patent Office, and I appreciate that I could possibly go out of order by continuing on this point, but my concern is that the Minister of Technology ought to be greatly interested in this subject, and it appears that he has no connection with it at all.
Those of us interested in this matter have not been able to ascertain that he has ever really addressed his mind to it, and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary's intervention just now made it perfectly clear that he knew nothing about it at all. Surely, it is a rather terrible thing that we should have the Minister of Technology, with his functions as laid down by the Prime Minister, not brought into this matter at all, and it should not be left to the Board of Trade.
I am not criticising the right hon. Gentleman in the very least. What I am saying is the very contrary. There is no political content whatever in what I am saying. What I am saying is that the right hon. Gentleman ought to have been brought into a matter of this kind. If the Minister of Technology is to have and to perform the functions which the Prime Minister indicated, this is the very kind of subject with which he ought to be concerned, and yet, so far as I can see, he has absolutely no connection with it at all.
I have no quarrel at all with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Dr. Bray); he may be perfectly right. That may be one of the things which ought to be taken into account, but we do not know what is going on, and, what is much worse, the Minister of Technology, apparently, does not know what is going on. What I am pleading for is that he should know.
I will give another example. There is another interesting example of this very same sort which arose in connection with the Finance Bill the other day.

Mr. Lubbock: Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman finishes this part of his argument, I think that he ought to know that the Minister of Public Building and Works wrote on 4th June to me saying that the printing and sales branches of the Patent Office were to be housed in offices in my constituency, in St. Mary Cray. His letter went on to say that
the majority of the staff being dispersed from central London are going further afield".
This indicates that a decision has already been made.

Sir L. Heald: I do not know what "further afield" means. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, West would like it to be Manchester, but it might be Manchester, or The Hartlepools, or anywhere. We do not know.
But let me give this further example. In the Finance Bill provision was made for what should be included in valuations for Purchase Tax. There had been a provision dealing with patents and designs, and Clause 3 of the Bill incorporated copyright. That was apparently because authors, according to the newspapers, had brought forward the question of copyright and said that it ought to be taken into account, and the Government accepted that. The matter arose in the Schedules—

Mr. R. W. Brown: On a point of order. I am following the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but I find it very difficult to see where this fits into the debate. We have had discussion on patents and on inventors. I ask for your guidance, Dr. Broughton, where this part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech fits into our discussion on this Bill.

The Temporary Chairman (Dr. A. D. D. Broughton): We are not discussing a Bill at the moment. We are discussing Class IV of the Civil Estimates, and so far the right hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks have been in order.

Sir L. Heald: I will be very brief about this. If the hon. Gentleman will be patient just for a moment I think that he will see the point.
The Finance Bill brought copyright into the matter where trade marks, patents, designs, had been mentioned. There was another case where provision

was made by amendment for relief from taxation in relation to copyright designs. An Amendment was put down suggesting that that ought also to apply to patents and designs, that inventors were entitled to protection. The Treasury, who, apparently, knew nothing about it at all, failed entirely to deal with the point.
There is another example where the Minister of Technology, as I suggest, ought to have had that point brought to his attention. If it had been brought to his attention I have no doubt whatever that he would have appreciated that there should be the same type of relief given to inventors as is given to authors. At present, the position appears to be that the Minister of Technology is not supposed to have any responsibility for that kind of thing at all.

Mr. R. W. Brown: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is not doing justice to the Finance Bill. Does he not recall that my right hon. Friend went into great detail to explain the problems of trying to establish patents and about copyright? I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is doing a grave injustice by arguing that these things were not taken into account.

Sir L. Heald: I cannot argue that now, but I can say that my right hon. Friend said that he had never in his life heard an Amendment so inefficiently answered.
I am only giving that as a practical example of this, that at present the Minister of Technology, who, I would have thought, essentially should be concerned with the interests and protection of inventors and the efficiency of the Patent Office arrangements and matters of that kind, apparently not only has no effective power to intervene but does not even have the interest to do so.

6.28 p.m.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: I was very interested in the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) and his comments about the location of the Patent Office. I think that what is rather more important is that generally the science and technological libraries of the country do need to be improved, and that where there is only one of a kind of document it needs to be duplicated and the copies more widely spread about.


This is essential because of the great number of developments. As one who has used the Manchester Library a great deal, may I say that if the Patent Office library were to go to Manchester I for one will be delighted.
What my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology has said about research, study groups, training of technologists, and so on, has undoubtedly been valuable, but this work of education—and training—is important in so far as it is a means to an end, and it cannot remain the main work of my right hon. Friend's Ministry, because efforts taken in this direction will take time to make themselves felt. Even if they are all entirely successful there is really not enough time to educate an entire generation. This is a work which, I think, ought to be that of the Department of Education and Science and I do not conceive the Ministry of Technology being a branch of that Department.
The research assistance given by the Ministry of Technology is of undoubted value. One of the weaknesses of our industry has been the inability to exploit some of the excellent ideas that have been put forward. I think that the Wolvercote Paper Mill, which has been given as an instance, is one type of development that we want to encourage. The weakness in technology in this country has been in the translation from the design board to production; in the development of the prototype, leading to the export consignments that should eventually follow.
The real responsibility of the Ministry of Technology lies in the modernisation of British industry. It lies not in initiating study groups here, and giving research grants there, valuable though these are, and essential though they will be, but in modernisation, and this is why the Ministry of Technology is so important.
The Ministry's success or failure will be determined not in 10 or 15 years, but in three, four or five years from now. It will be successful only if it is able to persuade industrial management to take certain decisions in the future which it has not taken in the past, and it is not a substitute for such action to devote the work of the Ministry entirely to education and training.
Improvements in financial understanding, technical control, and managerial

ability are most important and vital to industry. The work of the Ministry is of some value in accelerating this understanding, but this is all very slow in working. We cannot await the new generation to train and, eventually reach the managerial positions in which they, in turn, will influence industry. We have to influence the managers that we have in industry now. It is, therefore, in providing incentives here and now that the Ministry of Technology can play its most important rôle. More important, incentives can act quickly, and the effects can be seen with greater certainty.
Unfortunately, at present, there are very few incentives. The only really important incentives are those of the investment, initial and annual allowances provided by the taxation system. These investment allowances do not necessarily contribute to the modernisation of industry, which I consider to be the criterion for useful investment. Furthermore, the present system of investment assistance is undoubtedly haphazard, and I am not just thinking that the same investment allowances are given for computers as are given for gaming machines, scandalous though this may be. These allowances to encourage investment are indifferent to the type of investment, whether for the replacement of machinery, or modernisation, or whether the investment is beneficial to the community or not.
The whole case for giving investment allowances is that the investment so made should be beneficial to the community. What is of benefit to the community is not only that investment should be made, but that industry should be encouraged to modernise, and the two are not necessarily the same. Annual and initial allowances, for example, are precisely the same whether the machinery or plant is new or secondhand. These are by no means actual distributions, and I think that we should understand this. Initial and annual allowances are not gifts given to industry. But there is an element of assistance in them, and it is fair to make the point that they are the same for secondhand as for new machinery and equipment. It is of importance that discrimination should be possible between blanket investment given by the present capital allowances, and modernisation, which should


be the way to try to make use of our allowances.
There is a further element in the discrimination in investment. The Ninth American Machinist Inventory of American Working Equipment, 1963, showed that in the United States in that year 64 per cent. of machine-tools in use were more than 10 years old, of which 21 per cent. were more than 20 years old. Over the period of time which I have chosen, which is quite fair, one sees that, in 1925, 44 per cent. of the machine tools in use were more than 10 years old, that in 1953 that figure had risen to 55 per cent., and that in 1963 it had increased to 64 per cent. This rise in the number of machine tools more than 10 years old is very illuminating, and perhaps rather surprising, because it is likely that our figures—I have been unable to find comparable figures—show a similar trend.

Mr. Lubbock: Metal Working Production carried out a study of British machine tools about a year or 18 months ago. I cannot remember the exact figures, but they are worse than those which the hon. Gentleman has quoted relating to America experience.

Mr. Sheldon: I saw some of those figures, but they were not strictly comparable, and it is rather difficult to do the pinpointing which is possible with the American figures, and from which one is able to draw useful deductions.
When one examines the conclusions and the reasons for those figures, one sees that they are not quite so startling as they might appear at first sight. Some machine tools, naturally, are changed rather less frequently than others, and in some cases the failure to change machine tools does not have a great effect on productivity. A bench drill in the corner is not necessarily a sign of bad management, but what is crucially important is that certain kinds of new equipment are widely used. The American Inventory to which I referred shows that there are certain categories of equipment which are extremely new and are used. What is needed is not necessarily blanket investment, even for so important an investment as machine tools. What is important is that there should be certain peaks as the American survey shows, of certain kinds of machinery and equipment.
Every new machine has latent possibilities which are undreamt of at the design stage and it is important that there should be a wide understanding of the working of certain kinds of new machines which, in their turn, will lead to the next advance in development and production. These are the crucial investments, and special treatment should be given to them and special categories created for their encouragement.
The present method of influencing investment is by means of the capital allowances which are set off against taxation. Unfortunately, these have always been very complicated and not sufficiently or generally understood. The total cost of the capital allowances in 1964 was £1,195 million. This seems a large sum to encourage investment, but, on closer examination, one sees that that is not quite the case, because the capital allowances are split in three ways. First, there are the annual allowances which are really a kind of depreciation. They should be called depreciation allowances. In that year, they totalled £731 million.
The system of annual allowances works, as depreciation works, by writing off a certain part of the value of the investment each year. When the investment is finally sold—when it is useless, or not longer required—if there is a profit it shows that the depreciation has been too high and, as a result, there will be a balancing charge to be set off against the profit.
On the other hand, when the investment is sold at a loss it naturally shows that the depreciation throughout the years has been too low as compared with the annual allowances, but, there again, a balancing allowance will be added to the allowances. So there is no element of assistance by the Government, except to the extent that they are rather more generous than the actual depreciation.
This remains a subject of speculation, because the figures are not conclusive, although their general import should be accepted. Industry in general does not depreciate quite so quickly as the annual allowances permit. It is, therefore, rather difficult to estimate the precise amount of assistance given by annual allowances. Nevertheless, if the allowances are more generous they are taken back, in effect, when the piece of plant or equipment is sold at the end of its life.
So there is no net gain or loss. What there is is something in the nature of a loan, which is given in the initial stages, when the investment is fresh. After a certain time, when the investment is written down to zero it is also worth zero and the book and the real values coincide. When the investment is sold the profit is a balancing charge on which tax is paid.
The second form of assistance given to industry by the Government—the second form of incentive—is the initial allowance. In 1964, this totalled £142 million. Initial allowances are given only for the first year in which the piece of plant or equipment is purchased, and it is taken into account in precisely the same way as annual allowances are taken into account when the piece of equipment or machinery is sold at the end of its useful life.
These can, therefore, be added together in one respect, because if the initial allowances plus the annual allowances—the depreciation allowances—are greater than the actual depreciation, there is a loan over that period. The real cost of the loan is difficult to assess, but it is a little easier to guess than is the effect of the annual allowances, and I hazard a guess that it amounts to about £30 million a year out of the total cost of annual allowances of £142 million.
The third method of providing incentives to British industry by the Government is by means of investment allowances. These are given only for new investment. In 1964, they amounted to £322 million. They provide a real and positive contribution. This total amount of assistance to aid investment in industry in 1964, plus my rough guess of £30 million, representing the value of the loan interest charge, plus something else which is quite indefinable in terms of loan interest—because the annual allowances depreciate rather more quickly than some of the low depreciation rates generally accepted in parts of British industry—gives an extremely rough total of £370 million. This is an approximate estimation of the cost of the incentives provided by the Government to industry to invest not on specific items, but generally.
The Corporation Tax, as was pointed out by the right hon. and learned Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples), will effectively cut the value of all capital allowances.

These will be cut—using the same figure that I have adduced, to £240 million, so the net reduction will be about £130 million. But the encouragement to higher retentions which is given by the Corporation Tax effectually offsets this if the retentions increase by 9 per cent. I am speaking of the incentives given by the Government to industry to invest in machinery and equipment, and I am trying to point out that on this increase of retentions the investments will remain the same.
The Corporation Tax will not hit at investment; it will promote it. But the promotion will still be inadequate, and it will still be indiscriminate. The question of discrimination in investments is of crucial importance. All civil servants and all hon. Members try to avoid categorisation, because it is liable to be shot at. The categorisation of certain items for investment, Purchase Tax or anything else, always leads to the danger of too much rigidity. Some categories can be separated only by a hair's breadth, and it is difficult to defend marginal cases.
Nevertheless, we know that if we are to get investment in the right types of plant and machinery, categorisation of some kind will be needed. We all know that despite the derision which the former Member for Kidderminster, Sir Gerald Nabarro, used to show for categorisation in respect of Purchase Tax, and despite certain anomalies in the surcharge which was imposed last November, the categorisation of investments must come, even though, naturally, it must be rather broader than the more detailed categorisation in the examples I have cited.
It should be remembered that this is not entirely new. Annual allowances, as at present, represent a feeble attempt at categorisation of investments. In annual allowances there is a table, starting from the highest rate, at 31¼ per cent. for combine drills used in agriculture and going down to 20 per cent. for precision machine tools. I quote this glaring anomaly not as an argument against categorisation, but to show that the Ministry of Technology can play its part in determining where assistance can most profitably be given.
Somebody has to take a decision in this matter. No decision means the same


rate of investment allowances for fur coats as is given for computers. If the Ministry of Technology is to influence investments it must also influence initial investment and annual allowances. The rôle of the Ministry is not to stand on the sidelines of industry, providing money here and there for the study of this aspect or that. It is more than a branch of the Department of Education and Science, and it must concern itself with technological assistance to the economic wellbeing of the whole of industry.
In the past, a knowledge of technology and an understanding of economic forces were not often found together. It is for the Ministry of Technology to develop this rôle—this joining together of technology and economic forces which can create a great and lasting improvement in our industrial structure.

6.50 p.m.

Mr. Peter Griffiths: I listened with great care to the speech of the Minister and felt growing disappointment with what he had to say. I hoped for the kind of clear lead which would be intelligible to the great mass of people working in industry—that clear lead which is necessary if we are to get the new atmosphere of which the Minister spoke on the shop floor as well as in the realms of higher management. I have never sneered at the speech which the then Leader of the Opposition, now Prime Minister, made at Scarborough in 1963. I have always felt that when it was made that speech expressed a view which had great support outside the Labour Party and the trade union movement. The only fear I have is that the clarion call which was heard then has not been lived up to in practice.
The phrase used in "The New Britain", "mobilising the Resources of Technology under a national plan" would, if it were put forward in a manner which roused the enthusiasm of the mass of our people, be acceptable to those of all party complexions. This afternoon, we did not hear—

Mr. Maxwell: I wonder whether the hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Peter Griffiths) was present when the debate began. If he had been, he would know that the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) had already opened with a Conservative Central Office brief. Is this really necessary?

Mr. Griffiths: There is nothing to answer there. I have been here throughout the debate and probably longer than the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell).
In his opening speech, the Minister did not justify the promises which were made at Scarborough and again last October. Nor did he justify the paraphernalia of a whole new Ministry. I represent a constituency in the West Midlands where we have special problems in this respect. Although we have very large units of production, such as the car industry, many firms in the West Midlands are small, many of them family firms, and they are the bodies which we must ensure are modernised, using the most modern equipment. However, because of their small size they are the firms which find it most difficult to introduce the most modern equipment because of its great complexity, great cost and the need that such equipment shall be used full time. The small firm may find it difficult to make full use of such equipment if it has to use it for itself.
If I were, with all modesty, to suggest what the function of the Ministry of Technology should be, I would say that it is to arouse the enthusiasm of people within industry for the modernisation of the work they do, that they should be ready and receptive for the introduction of the most modern machinery. This is vital. It could be done, first of all, by the co-operation of other Departments of the Government, secondly, in co-operation with industry, and thirdly, by gaining the confidence of the public and private sectors, not only of industry but of administration.
The Minister said that his Department was "guiding the application" of technology. I accept that many of the points he made are examples of the kind of advance which we should like to see. They did not arouse enthusiasm in the House, and they certainly will not arouse enthusiasm outside. They will not create the kind of atmosphere which is necessary. I was disappointed, because he appeared not to be very interested in the suggestion that he should personally draw on international experience. Perhaps I misunderstood him. I thought that he suggested that because he was tied here


it was not practicable to do this. Before his Department carries out many of its projects, it would be useful to see what has been done abroad to make sure that there is no unnecessary duplication.
The Post Office has already been mentioned in connection with the advances in co-ordination which I have suggested, so I will not repeat what has been said. The Minister might co-operate with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour in industrial training. I know that there are certain Prayers on the Order Paper which indicate that there is a certain amount of teething trouble in the application of the industrial training of young persons, but I believe that the principle is well established and accepted by industry. It could be expanded so that it took in people who were not in the early stages of their training but in the higher echelons of management.
Co-ordination with the Minister of Housing and Local Government would be extremely fruitful. The modernisation of local government procedures will be of great importance when we have the reorganisation of local government boundaries in the West Midlands. Here is an opportunity which, if it is not seized at this moment, may not come again for many years. I hope that it will be possible for the production of modern, technical, electronic equipment to be planned ahead to meet demand and that there will be no bottlenecks when the new units of local government are set up in the West Midlands and elsewhere.
I hope that there will be co-ordination with the Department of Education and Science. I must agree with the remarks which have been made about teaching machines. It might be possible for the Minister to co-ordinate the use of equipment in industry and commerce with that which is used in education. For example, in my constituency, calculating machines for children of 11 and 12 have been introduced, so that they do not waste their time on mere computation but are tackling the real mathematical problems. The equipment in our schools is dreadfully expensive. An attempt to standardise the equipment in industry, commerce and education would be to everyone's advantage. This is where the Ministry of Technology could use its influence to great effect.
The work of language training and the development of language laboratories goes on side by side in industry and education with the training to go abroad and carry out our export programmes and the training of youngsters in our schools. Standardisation could lead to a reduction in cost of this kind of equipment. Perhaps, with his position in the Cabinet, the Minister might find it possible to ensure that the progress in electronics made within the Armed Forces is fed back into industry, so far as the national security permits. Very often, there is a duplication of effort between the Armed Forces and industry.
Lastly, I suggest that the Minister of Technology could take over the direct function of training senior people within industry and commerce. As a teacher, I remember the refresher courses for teachers which were run by the Ministry of Education on the Ministry's own initiative, not just for young entrants to the teaching profession but for people with many years of experience, who found great value from such courses. I wonder whether the Minister could take a leaf out of the book of the Department of Education and Science and put on such courses, not for young men entering industry, whose influence will not be felt for 20 years, but for those who are already in positions of top management. I should like to see them back in school, if only for a short time. With them, there might be some of the top officials from trade unions—[An HON. MEMBER: "And Members of Parliament."] Indeed, Members of Parliament as well, if the Minister wished.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Would my hon. Friend think of recommending to the Minister that he might take a look at the British Institute of Management, which was set up to achieve many of the objectives that my hon. Friends and I first had in mind and which perhaps has fallen into disuse because there is not a close enough attachment between those interested in technology and the Board of Trade who, at the present moment, are the responsible body for it?

Mr. Griffiths: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It confirms the great need for co-ordination between people working to the same ends. That is perhaps a field where the Minister of


Technology might find that his efforts were fruitful.

Mr. Marsh: Before the hon. Member goes too far on the side of sending businessmen and other top men back to school, he should bear in mind that they have been back to school for the last six months on courses set up under the Industrial Training Act.

Mr. Griffiths: I agree that is a fact, but I am trying to suggest that there is a need for far greater training within small firms than within the larger units. Particularly in the West Midlands, where you have such small firms, it is essential that their managements should be given this type of opportunity.
I was developing the point that I feel we ought not only to look at those in the managerial capacity but at those in positions of authority in the trades unions. It is their attitude that has so much influence on the decision whether or not modernisation shall be accepted. This is in many ways a partnership, and some mixed educational classes with the two groups together might produce some interesting extra-mural work, as well as value within the classroom.
I suggest that the Ministry besides creating the atmosphere which I have called for might well continue the function which has already been outlined by the Minister and which I appreciate very greatly: to review the need for the re-equipment of industry and to continue the need for research into techniques and developments. I accept that as being extremely important, but I would impress upon the Minister the great urgency of the need for reports to be produced as soon as humanly possible. As there are so many changes, it is possible always to say that it is a continuing process and that we shall never come to the end of developments. But I think it is essential that we have interim reports, even if the same group continues its studies later. If there is co-ordination of effort between Government Departments, the Services, education and industry, we shall create the size of home market which is so essential if our producers of equipment are to find markets overseas.
We must all make sure that we do nothing in our political discussions that could be interpreted as preventing

management from carrying out modernisation programmes and workers from accepting them. We all have a responsibility in this, because on it hangs the survival of our country, and it is far more important than temporary political advantage and the scoring of political points. I hope that if the Minister of Technology can arouse the enthusiasm within industry and commerce that I have suggested, he and his Ministry will have the full support of all sides of the House, because the function is one of vital importance. Such a lead would be positive evidence of a real intention to modernise Britain. Without it, I am sure that Parliament and the country will come to the conclusion that much that we have heard has been just talk. I hope we shall see practical evidence very soon of the kind of modernisation programmes that were forecast last year, and that we shall feel that we are getting the kind of lead that industry and commerce deserve.

7.5 p.m.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: I think we all enjoyed the speech of the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples), and probably if he goes on in the same way and can overcome his persecution complex, he may yet make a good Parliamentarian. He favoured the House with some analysis of the work of the Ministry of Technology and, I was very glad to see, he passed over what seemed to me to be some of the more superficial criticisms that have been made by some of his colleagues on the benches opposite and by the Press. I suspect that there is a certain amount of feeling on the Front Bench opposite between the right hon. Member for Wallasey, on the one hand, who, if he will forgive me for saying so, is a practical man like the Minister himself, and, on the other hand, the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg), who has been sitting like a great fleshy wet blanket on technology through practically the whole life of the Government of hon. Gentlemen opposite. I only hope that the right hon. Member for Wallasey wins.
Some of the comments that have been made from the benches opposite were, first of all, the old theological arguments of the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) that the whole


idea of the Ministry was wrong, anyway. That really seems to be past history. We can have many possible patterns of Ministries. All of us were so fed up with the arguments about it before the election that we were very glad that the pattern was settled decisively, and I trust that the Ministry will be allowed to settle down not for five years but for the 10 years that it takes to get a Department strongly established in Whitehall and in the machinery of government. I hope that other Departments will note this, and that there is no point in regarding the Ministry of Technology merely as a bird of passage.
The other point which has been made by some people outside the House, though not, I am glad to say, in the House this afternoon, is the question of the rôle of the Minister himself. I hear a great deal from engineers and technologists, many of whom have met the Minister on previous occasions. They have found him a great contrast from the previous Secretary of State for Education and Science, because they feel he is on their side, that he is knowledgeable and quite genuinely interested in what they are doing. Nor would any of us feel in the House, though the suggestion has sometimes been made outside, that industry and public opinion are not interested in the Ministry or in the advance of technology. I think they quite genuinely are.
The suggestions that technology cannot be made the subject of live political and public interest are entirely wrongly based and, as the influence of the Ministry develops, I am quite sure that will be the view of the country.
In opening his speech my right hon. Friend the Minister referred to the extraordinary superficiality of blaming him for not having put all the economic ills of the country right in his first nine months of office, particularly considering the economic situation that we inherited. Even more serious than the economic situation that we inherited is the rundown state of the machinery of Government itself, within which a Ministry had to be created to galvanise Whitehall and the Government of the country into a new frame of mind about technology.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Did I understand the hon. Member to say that I had been suggesting that there should not be a Ministry? That is not what I intended to convey. What I intended to convey was that if we are going to have a Minister, the Government should give him the necessary power and backing to get on with his job.

Dr. Bray: Yes, but it was the old argument about the demarcation between Ministries, which I think is rather sterile.
The right hon. Member for Wallasey suggested that the range of industries for which the Ministry is responsible should be extended, and he mentioned the building industry in particular. While the Ministry of Technology is responsible for the Building Research Station, he must either take responsibility for the technology of the building industry or shed responsibility for the Building Research Station. I understand that the reason for this was that when the Building Research Station was put under the Ministry of Works, as it used to be, all scientific and technological work in the station stopped, while the station wilted in the hands of the administrators. It had to be put back under the protection of D.S.I.R. as quickly as possible.
I am sure that that state of affairs does not apply today, with the lively directorate of research and development in the Ministry of Public Building and Works, and I hope that the Building Research Station can be persuaded to accept its rôle in the Ministry of Public Building and Works and in the industry which it ought to occupy. Alternatively, responsibility for technology in building should be transferred to the Ministry of Technology.
Another industry in serious need of attention is the heavy plant manufacturing and chemical engineering industry. Delivery in this country for heavy steel pressure vessels from British industry is two years. One can get a better vessel, cheaper, delivered from Japan in ten months. The reason for this is not cheap labour and it is not excess capacity due to a trade cycle in Japan. It is due to proper equipment, proper management structure and complete modernisation in the Japanese heavy engineering industry. I hope that the tremendous export potential of the plant building industry in this


country will be further explored by the Minister, particularly since it is an industry which at the moment is an orphan with no Ministry taking an interest in it.
If the range of technology needs to be expanded then the Minister needs to look at the people that he has to deal with the whole range of problems which come to his Department. There is no denying that there is an undercurrent of unease in the relationship between the technologists and the administrators in the Civil Service. I receive a continual stream of representations from people in the service and in industry on this question.
Perhaps I may quote some of the more restrained remarks which have been made to me. One is,
There is a unanimous view that if the professional and similar classes were to be given managerial responsibility in the service and this were to become known, this would greatly help recruitment to the service. The divisions between the administrative and professional workers exist in the service just as they do outside. It would help if it could be shown in terms of responsibility and progress to the top posts that technical people are not at a disadvantage. The facts at present are against this.
The Minister referred to the value of having the managing director an engineer so that the technologist could feel that it was his show, run by his kind of person. I am sure that the Minister will not take it unkindly if I ask him to look at his own Department in this respect. I will quote a remark made about the Department by an official who I do not think is known to the Minister personally and who certainly is not one that he knows I know. He said:
Many of us expected that the new Government would improve the standing of scientists and engineers in the Civil Service. You can perhaps imagine our feelings. The administrative class is on top, the scientists and engineers are on tap.

Mr. Cousins: May I point out to my hon. Friend that this is not so. Obviously we have two departments. We have an administrative department in which we need administrators. We certainly have scientists in our other top posts and most of our groups are headed by scientists. We have recently recruited a well-known scientist, Dr. J. B. Adams, to be controller of our Department. What my hon. Friend said is a misunderstanding of the responsibilities of the Department.

Dr. Bray: I am glad to hear my right hon. Friend say that and I hope he will clear up the feeling which has existed. All I can say is that it is a quite genuinely held feeling. The fact that the Minister has helped to clear up the position this afternoon will no doubt ease the unrest. The feeling is not confined to his Department nor is the problem of the introduction of expertise into the Civil Service, the relationship between expert and administrative staff, and the question whether this demarcation is an obsolete conception, entirely confined to his Department.
I would go further and ask whether we can achieve many of the things which the Ministry of Technology wants to achieve while the present structure of administration exists in the public service. May I refer to my right hon. Friend's announcement about a working party on the machine tool cycle? This remark, again, is not from his Department but it relates to operational research in which he has an interest. The remark is:
This particular problem needs six months high-powered operational research study, an expert tells me. If Minister X would give me that job, I should run it myself full-time. What is he up to? Why it is left to Minister Y, who clearly does not understand it? Why does Minister Z lie so low? I am by now feeling exceedingly frustrated. All I have been given to do so far by those I thought intended to use me is a particularly unsavoury, if high-level one-meeting-a-month-committee job.

Mr. Marples: Which Ministers?

Dr. Bray: If the right hon. Gentleman presses that too far he may discover that they were Ministers in the last Government.
The problem remains of bringing the experts together. I respectfully suggest to the Minister that the problem of the machine tool cycle is an operational research problem. By all means let us have a committee of representatives of the industry. If I know that industry, the Minister will certainly get some odd people. Let us have representatives of the trade unions and the City. No doubt these people can contribute to an analysis and review of the problem. But its solution, I am afraid, is probably better handled by people who have dealt with trade cycles and general stock problems in the operational research field.
This brings me to the whole point of the machinery of Government. One cannot assess the effectiveness of the Ministry


of Technology and its impact on industry in isolation from other Departments in Whitehall. We have been talking about the modernisation of Government. The right hon. Member for Wallasey emphasised this. I am glad to say that he rubbed it in. I am also glad that he reminded us of the speech made by the Prime Minister at Scarborough.
The modernisation of Government was originally and must remain the theme of this Government. But I have some misgivings about the pace at which we are advancing in this direction. We have different objectives from those of our predecessors, but we are still operating the same old rickety machinery and are making decisions in the same antiquated ways. What we had hoped to do was to modernise the way in which the decisions were taken. When we were facing a problem we wanted to ensure that the information was available which was needed to settle that problem satisfactorily. We should be able to think out the information and consider various methods by which the problem may be solved.
Before the election we had worked out a system for the computerisation of Government statistics. As the House knows, the man in a back street firm in Birmingham sends in a return about the numbers of men he employs to the employment exchange or in some cases to the regional office of the Ministry of Labour. In the end that goes to St. James's Square. The production from that firm is reported either to the trade association or direct to the Board of Trade and it is added into the total for the industry. Any building plans which the firm has are submitted to the Minister of Public Building and Works through his Ministerial machine. But the firm itself totally disappears from statistics, and nobody in Whitehall knows anything about it. If it is necessary to inquire into a problem about it, one must start from scratch and find out what it is all about. This is true, not only of the problems of the individual firm but of the problems of any aspect of industry which suddenly crop up and which the Government want to know about urgently, only to learn that the information is not at hand to deal with them.
Before the election we had in a working party the advice of the foremost

experts in the country in setting up a system to deal with this—for preserving the information, being able to handle it fluently, marshalling it for those who need it, whether they are in Government or in industry, either in the nationalised industries or in the private sector. This has not been followed up. These proposals have been buried beneath two layers of official committees which have considered none of the principles involved in this reorganisation and which have no appreciation of systems analysis or analysing a problem as it must be analysed in the computer world. These committees are playing noughts and crosses with a list of 100 improvements in timing, in accuracy, in coverage of the existing pattern of statistical returns, without really considering the problem from a fundamental point of view.
No doubt many hon. Members read the article in last week's Sunday Times about Richard Stone's work at Cambridge on the computable model of the economy. That work should be done in Government. Now that it is working or reaching the development stage, it should be done in Government. Why is it not being done in Government?
With the present way of handling information, when we talk of planning we are trying to make bricks not only without straw but without clay. What we are doing is ordering the furniture for a planning system before we have built its foundation or before we have built the structure of the house.
I turn to another field altogether from the economic planning field, but still a vital field in the modernisation of this country. The Labour Party owes its modern outlook on pensions and social welfare to the social research into the needs of old people and the working of the social security system conducted by Professor Richard Titmuss, Peter Townsend and Brian Abel-Smith. Yet these gentlemen seem to have been kept at arm's length by the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance. Why? Why is there this difficulty in introducing the best analytical thought and the best research into Government Departments?
Change is perhaps beginning to take place, but it still has a very long way to go. The most lively set of appointments made by any Minister so far were those made by my right hon. Friend the


Secretary of State for Wales, with Peter Hall, Christopher Foster and a number of other bright young men of their generation. I hope that this example set by my right hon. Friend will be widely followed by his colleagues in the future.
The right hon. Member for Wallasey mentioned the control of computers in Government generally and spoke of the way in which he as a Minister would stake an imperialist claim for this if it were to be offered to him. The right hon. Gentleman needs to think a little further about the problem. As I understand it, the position now is that, whereas the actual responsibility for hardware and advice on the hardware of computer installations and the software that goes with them is the responsibility of the Ministry of Technology, the systems analysis, the operational research, the economic justification for machines, still rests basically with the Treasury. The Treasury claims responsibility for operational research, but it is not doing anything about it. It is just sitting on it like a dog in the manger.
I very much hope that the Minister of Technology will do a little poaching here and suggest to the Treasury that if it does not get on with the job he will start doing it himself, as he is very well equipped to do. There is no sense of urgency in the Treasury about this matter. The Treasury seems to engender the most violent emotions in the hearts of Members of Parliament, Ministers and civil servants in other Departments. But people are a little unfair. The suggestion is that the Treasury is a heartless tyrant grinding the faces of the poor. It is not. It is much more a kindly, elderly sub-postmistress with a long queue at the counter. The problem is not solved by bringing in the dear old sub-postmistress's sister to stand behind the counter with her in the next-door department in Great George Street to work the machine by the same old methods. This is just dividing the responsibilities differently, one dealing with the National Insurance stamps and the other doing the postage and the Savings Bank. There must be a development of new methods. We must take a much more fundamental look at the system than we have yet been able to.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will thoroughly enjoy throwing his weight

around in Whitehall in this direction. He needs to bring a breath of fresh air on to the scene. If he finds the archaic traditions of the House of Commons a little difficult to adjust to—and who can blame him—I only hope that he finds the traditions of Whitehall equally difficult and that he is refusing to adapt. I wish him every luck in this campaign. I am sure that he needs to conduct this campaign if he is to pull off the results which we all hope for from himself and from his Department.
I am sure that we shall see progress in specific projects coming through. I know that there are very interesting things in the pipeline, but I am sure that the pipeline will become much greater in diameter and that the projects will move along it much faster if a real, fundamental reconsideration is set in hand of the part played by the Government and of the whole machinery of government itself.

7.26 p.m.

Mr. John Page: I hope that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West (Dr. Bray) will forgive me if I do not follow him in his speech, in an effort to ensure the brevity of my own. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's remark about the sub-postmistress will he sufficiently amusing and new to make his speech stand out today.
It is exactly four years and four days since we had a debate on Science in which, to my great regret, I failed to catch the eye of the Chair. In desperation, I wrote a letter to The Times the following day, condensing a 20-minute speech into about three paragraphs. The Times very kindly printed it. I think that it achieved far greater publicity than the speech would have received had I made it. I regret to say that, despite this publicity, since that day no action has been taken on the important and dramatic points I then made. It was, perhaps, too way-out in those days, but now we have a new Minister and we have my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) who is, as was reflected by his speech today, receptive to new ideas. Because I believe that my right hon. Friend will soon be occupying a seat on the Treasury Bench again, I address my remarks not only to the Minister but to my right hon. Friend.
I want to speak about people, not about plant. The Minister mentioned the use of technologists. He is particularly used to handling and dealing with people. I hope that he will find what I have to say stimulating. We must find incentives to make management and trade unions accept modernisation and change in our factories. The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), who, unfortunately, is not here now, made a most interesting speech on selective financial incentives. I go a very long way with the comments the hon. Gentleman made in the early part of his speech. This again, will allow me not to have to repeat any of that aspect of my own speech.
There is one other incentive which I will not mention in detail and that is the increased competition which our industries must have in order to be forced to make needed changes. May I therefore deal with a third aspect where immediate change can be made in the improvement of the use of technology and technologists, and that is in the private sector of manufacturing industry.
I should like to recite five groups of figures and then draw a conclusion. All these figures come from an extraordinarily interesting survey entitled, "Scientific and Technological Manpower in Great Britain, 1962". When I mention technicians I refer to the scientists and technologists whose qualifications are enumerated in that survey. First, more than half of all those employed in private manufacturing industry work for firms which employ fewer than 500 employees. Next, about half the total of the technical manpower of the country, that portion of it being 88,000, are engaged in private manufacturing industry. [Interruption.] I should like the Minister to listen to this. It has waited four years and four days to be produced and I am desperately anxious that he should take it in as well as read it in detail tomorrow, which I am sure he will.
Of the total of 88,000 technologists engaged in private industry, two-thirds are employed in firms employing more than 500 and one-third work for firms employing under 500. Perhaps I could refer to them as the larger and the smaller firms. In the larger firms, 15 employees

in every 1,000 are technologists and in the smaller firms five in every 1,000 are technologists. Therefore, the man who works in the larger firm has three times the technical backing of a man who works in the smaller firm.
Lastly, there is the question of how these technologists spend their time. Of the total of 88,000, 32,000 are used for research and development sponsored wholly by private industry. Of these 32,000—and here is the rub—26,000 work for the larger firms and 6,000 work for the smaller firms.
This brings us to certain conclusions. Over half of those who work in private manufacturing industry, that is 4 million people out of 7½ million, are assisted by only one-quarter of our technologists, of whom only 6,000 back them with research and development. The remaining 3½ million who work for the larger firms are backed by the balance of 26,000 technologists who are working on research and development. It seems, therefore, that the majority of our working people are working with a very small research, development and technological backing. I believe that this is the real reason why our manufacturing industry has failed to keep up with the productive ability of our competitors overseas. This is the picture, and a picture in proportions almost completely unchanged over the last four years, except that those engaged in the smaller firms on research and development have actually gone down in number by 500.
May I draw the conclusions and then draw to a conclusion? These figures must show that the larger firms are more conscious of the use and value of technologists. They also lead to the conclusion that only where there are large runs of a particular product is it possible most efficiently and effectively to harness modern production techniques. We therefore come to the only possible conclusion in my own mind, which was touched upon by my hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Peter Griffiths), but I disagree with him. He said that we must have more training of people in these smaller firms. I believe that the day of the smaller manufacturing company is over and that the smaller firms must merge into larger organisations. If this is not done, they will not have the technological backing in manufacture which


they need. The place for the small firm is in the providing of services rather than in the provision of manufacturing facilities.
How can we arrange these mergers and how can we rapidly accelerate the use of modern technology in private industry? We have one important weapon which is available to any Government and could be instituted immediately and become effective within 12 months. This is to provide that no bulk order should be placed for any manufactured article by any national or local government department or by any nationalised corporation unless the company manufacturing the article or any components contained in it reaches certain standards in the use of modern equipment and modern techniques. Already in military purchasing quite a number of manufactured goods have to be bought from firms which are approved suppliers to the Admiralty, the War Office and so on.
I believe that we can learn from that experience and that we should say that every article bought by any Government organisation must come from a technically qualified firm. Some of the costs may be higher initially, but eventually costs will come down and the products will be better. In the United States the Federal Purchasing Bureau adopts a scheme whereby only companies which have what is called a feasibility capability report can supply products to the Government. I have not got all the details at the moment, but if the Minister is interested and does not already know them—and I am grateful to him for listening to what I am saying—I will try to obtain them and send them to him. This is the third way by which we can quickly increase the speed of the introduction of modernisation.
I have mentioned selective incentives, greater competition and Government action in being selective in purchasing. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey suggested another way, that is, requiring that tenders for certain complicated goods should be submitted in a way which showed that computerisation had been used in working out the critical path of manufacture. This could be a beginning.
We could take it much further.
Those of us who listened with enormous interest to the computer course upstairs—I went to the first two sessions but I failed to go this morning—could not but be impressed by the words of Sir Leon Bagrit in his opening remarks when he emphasised how anxious he was because our competitors in Europe, in the United States and elsewhere were taking advantage of techniques which were available to us in this country but which our managements were not applying. He said that it was not yet too late for us to catch up during the next year or two, but he emphasised that time was short.
From my experience in industry and in seeing other industries at work, I am convinced that there is only a little time for us to take advantage of the application of modern techniques. I beg the Minister—I say this also to my right hon. Friend in his planning and policymaking—to take advantage of the time which is available to us and to use it to good effect for our country.

Mr. Cousins: I did not interrupt the hon. Gentleman's very interesting speech, but may I now ask him whether the statistics which he gave have been brought up to date, or were they to be related to the speech four years ago?

Mr. Page: The figures I referred to have been brought up to date, in the 1962 statistics published in October, 1963, but the interesting point is that the proportions are almost identical all the way through.

7.43 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Palmer: In a few minutes I shall join some observations of mine on technical manpower to the remarks made on that subject by the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page), but I wish, first, to take up a point made by the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke), to whose speeches we always listen with great respect. The hon. Gentleman said that technology was a subject which could well be taken out of politics.

Mr. Maxwell: Hear, hear.

Mr. Palmer: No, I do not entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman about that.
It is the sort of remark which people make from time to time on many matters, sometimes almost coming to the point


of wanting to take Parliament out of politics. Very often, it is only when subjects become a matter of controversy and argument between the parties that they receive proper attention. In my view, if there is now controversy between the parties on technology, this will probably be good, in the long run, for technology.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I agree that it should remain a political subject and that we should debate it in Parliament, but it is a subject which we ought to be able to debate without our thoughts being coloured by party considerations.

Mr. Palmer: Just how much conflict there is depends upon our sense of reality at any given time. This was the weakness of the speech of the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples). I am sorry that he has gone out of the Chamber; he has been flitting in and out all day. The subject is very much bigger and vaguer than his remarks made it out to be. The right hon. Gentleman's speech seemed to me a bit unreal, a bit unnatural, a bit unscientific. It is not proper for anyone to be quite so sure of himself as the right hon. Gentleman seemed to be this afternoon. To me, at least, the right hon. Gentleman sounded noisily partisan, while my controversial right hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Cousins) seemed modest and very convincing in contrast.
It was evident from the speech of the right hon. Member for Wallasey that the attack by the Opposition is now somewhat different. At one time they argued that my right hon. Friend's Ministry was unnecessary. The argument advanced by the right hon. Gentleman today was that my right hon. Friend had no power to do the things which ought to be done. Obviously, this argument does not square in logic with the argument that the Ministry is unnecessary.
I frankly admit that at one time I had some doubt about the need for a Ministry of Technology. Obviously, everything done by this Ministry impinges at every point on the work of almost every Government Department. I thought that this was a valid point, and I regard it as the supreme task of my right hon. Friend to make his Ministry

truly viable. I am sure that he is struggling to do so, and I believe that he will succeed. But I can see that the arguments for and against having such a Ministry are, or were, fairly evenly balanced.
I come now to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Dr. Bray). Criticism of organisational forms is always easy. What really matters is the spirit and the determination of the organisers. People can overcome organisations and sometimes make the most unlikely organisations do a very useful job. We now have this Ministry. It is now a thing of practice, not of theory. I feel that there is—perhaps it is just an instinct within me—a new sense of purpose in our national attitude to the urgent need for the technological modernisation of industry.
Now, two major points arising out of the work of my right hon. Friend's Department. I take, first, the position of the Atomic Energy Authority. I rather doubt that the Atomic Energy Authority in its present form is necessary at all. It evolved in the first place from the Ministry of Supply, when it was turned into a kind of independent public corporation but not a trading corporation. Much of its work is in heavy electrical engineering research and testing, not pure research. In my view, there is much to be said for a good deal of this work being transferred to and combined with the work of the Central Electricity Generating Board, which operates in a parallel field but which is bound to be infinitely more commercial in its operations than the Atomic Energy Authority can hope to be.
A lot of the lighter research activity done by the Authority, atomic processing, and so on, could either remain with the Authority or gradually be taken elsewhere, but I am not convinced that it is right to have in this country in the heavy power supply sector two enormous research and development organisations, one having grown out of a direct Government agency at one time and the other run by a public trading corporation. The case for reviewing the work done by both these organisations and bringing them together is very strong.
I appreciate that this is one of the responsibilities of my right hon. Friend


and that, with his usual humility, he will not necessarily want to give it up, but I ask him to look critically at the work of the Authority in relation to the work of the Board because, in doing so, he might be rendering very useful service.
As an engineer, I am sure that the key to everything we are doing in modernising our technological standards is an improvement in the status, qualifications, training and opportunities of technologists and associated technicians. There is still much confusion as to the nature of the rôle of the technologist and that of the technician. In these days, technical manpower is one of the greatest single weaknesses that industry has to contend with.
I know that much progress has been made in improving the standard of training and education of engineers. The establishment of the Diploma of Technology was an enormous step forward. The colleges of advanced technology and the talk of having technological universities are also advances. Now the engineering institutions are coming together to form a joint council and that again is a step forward. The trouble is that everything is so slow. It takes so long, so much debate and argument. In addition, to be frank, there are so many vested interests. Surely one of the greatest continuing scandals is the slowness of the engineering institutions and the education system generally to establish proper standards of qualifications for technician engineers.
I emphasise the term "technician engineer". I am not referring to the technologist engineer. To make the most effective use of a technologist, he must have working with him three or four competent technician engineers. Otherwise, to a great extent he is wasted on unnecessary tasks.
I believe that one of the principal reasons for the slowness is that the major engineering institutions, in a laudable and proper attempt to professionalise themselves, to make certain that they are thoroughly professional, have been far too anxious to divest themselves of responsibility for the numerous technician engineers. For about a decade, the institutions have stressed the essential auxiliary rôle that the technician plays in relation to the technologist, but they have searched high and low for someone

else, or something else, to take these awkward chaps off their hands.
Now, for the first time, a professional organisation for technician engineers has come into existence. It is rather a long title, which I will not give, and it looks after technician electrical and technician radio engineers. I wish it well, but in my view it is not the right solution because a technician engineer is as much an engineer as a technologist engineer and should be granted a special grade within the major professional body of his own profession.
That leads me to a point which is not often discussed, but which bears on the status of engineers. Under our somewhat archaic system of government, the Privy Council grants the royal charter of a scientific body or professional engineering institution or a learned society. Surely one of the things that my right hon. Friend might look at is the method by which the standards of a professional institution are approved by the Privy Council. I have taken the trouble to get some details. The rules say:
In considering any specific Petition the following questions, and any others, are taken into consideration:
They ask if the financial position is sound, but it was the fourth point that interested me. This said:
Is it fully representative of the interests it purports to serve, and is its status in its own sphere generally recognised?
I want to stress the words
… fully representative of the interests it purports to serve …
I suggest that the great engineering institutions—and I am a member of one—have become so much part of the general structure of the education and training of engineers that they cannot go on behaving as aloof private bodies. If they ask, rightly, for a semi-official status, they cannot behave as though they have a right to be entirely independent of general public policy. If engineering as a profession is to have the status it should have, the technologist must feel a responsibility for his colleague, the technician, or else we go back to the old view that anyone can be an engineer. Royal charters should insist on a fully representative scope for any profession.
Finally, I want to deal with a matter touched upon already by my right hon. Friend. One of the principal reasons


that so few young men and women go into engineering as a profession is that they are not sure that they will by that road necessarily rise all the way to the top in industry. I tend to have the usual bias of the engineer against accountants because they get in the way of doing something constructive, but there are far too many young men who are anxious to calculate the cash results of industry as accountants, or to advise on the administration of industry or to tackle its legal problems, and not enough young men going into industry anxious to produce the goods which make un our industrial wealth.
Far too many top posts on the boards of directors are occupied by lawyers and accountants and not enough by engineers and technologists. While I do not necessarily want to hold up the Soviet Union as an example in these matters, it is interesting to note that one of the regulations of Soviet industry—probably far too inflexible—is that there must always be on the management board of any enterprise of any size a set proportion of engineers.

Mr. John H. Osborn: While I agree with 90 per cent. of what the hon. Gentleman says on that point, I think that there is a danger that the engineer, chemist, or scientist considers any activity in industry outside his own to be not the done thing and likes to stay in his own laboratory or works. I agree with him, however, provided the engineers themselves could be encouraged to be a little more outward looking and to take more interest in producing things that the sales people want and at the right kind of price.

Mr. Palmer: Of course, this is the theory which is put forward particularly by professional administrators, lawyers and accountants. I have heard it advanced on many occasions. I am not speaking of scientists. They may be somewhat introverted people, and perhaps they need to be because they have to concentrate on research in their laboratories; but engineers are largely extroverted people because they are dealing with the world of matter and with fashioning and changing it. There is nothing at all in this "unsuitable" theory when we consider that one or two of the

top people in industry are Lord Hinton and Lord Fleck who have come up on the engineering or scientific or technical side to top industrial positions.
It is an old-fashioned view—a very convenient view for some people—that the engineer is used to his workshop and is not interested in administration. The truth is that many engineers make excellent administrators and I am arguing that until we make it quite clear that engineers can rise from the lower positions in industry to the very highest and have the same opportunities as any other grade of administrators, we will continue to find that we lack young men—and women—coming into industry to be trained as engineers.

8.1 p.m.

Mr. John H. Osborn: The hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) and my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) clashed about whether science and politics mixed. The debate has shown that politics has as much chance of mixing with science and technology as oil with water.
The Government have taken their own action on the report resulting from the work of the Committee headed by Sir Burke Trend. We now have a Ministry of Technology and a clearly defined sphere for education and science. The ingredients for this operation have had the chance to settle down and it is quite obvious, to use a chemical phrase, that the emulsifying agent, namely, the creation of the Ministry of Technology, has not necessarily succeeded in bringing science and politics closer together—mixing them.
From the discussion across the Floor of the Committee between the hon. Member for Bristol, Central and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) it is obvious that the challenges which still face those responsible for governing the country are almost as unresolved as they were two or three years ago.
The Minister gave us a catalogue of the committees and advisory committees which he has under him. He told us of the studies he has implemented and how he has allocated his money. But this will achieve nothing unless the information coming back to the Minister


can result in action. I appreciate that that information must be collected scientifically so that we can make the necessary decisions, but the difference of emphasis between the two sides of the Committee is that the Government side is of the view that these decisions should be taken by Whitehall while on this side we consider that many of them should be taken by industry itself.
A debate such as this must be wide ranging and essentially inconclusive, but I welcome the fact that we are debating the application of science in industry. It was five years ago that I managed to bring this subject to the attention of the House when I moved, an Amendment to the Motion, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
The machinery to act as a catalyst for the process of implementing technology in industry and whether that machinery is working adequately is the subject of the debate today.
I want to make two preliminary observations. The first concerns Parliament and technology. Last night, I saw a Vicky cartoon in the Evening Standard showing placards saying:
Modernise Britain. Reform the Unions. Reform Parliament? How dare you!
I had some sympathy with that cartoon. Today, we are having a full-scale debate which is essentially a political debate when the task of the Opposition is to examine the work of the Minister of Technology and whether he has carried out the tasks he has undertaken to carry out and whether the Government are implementing their promises of a year ago. This is a legitimate case for debate.
There was another cartoon which impressed me five or six weeks ago and it was of the Minister himself. It appeared—to the best of my recollection—in The Guardian and may have been a little unkind. There were six acts. In the first the Minister was sleeping; in the second he was sleeping; in the third he said something about computers; in the fourth he was sleeping; in the fifth he shouted, "Machine tools"; and in the sixth he was sleeping again. This gave the impression that everything was slumbering, but for two outbursts of activity. In the cartoon there were two dashes and "hitting the headlines". This can happen because politics and technology have inevitably been mixed.
I hope that I shall not be ruled out of order if I say that if the House of Commons is to grapple with technology, let alone with science, we must find a better way and better procedures for dealing with the detailed problems in science, engineering, technology and the application of technology in industry which we should be facing. The Select Committee on Procedure has made several Reports. I hope that we shall debate its first Reports before the Summer Recess, and that we shall have some information about the advice given to the Select Committee by the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee on the value of a Select Committee on Science and Technology.
The debate today has been diffuse and I am very mindful of the comment—and I wrote this before the Minister said it—that the right hon. Gentleman does not like Questions—"What are we doing about such and such a field and why are we not doing it faster?". This is excellent politics—or some people may think that it is—but those with a knowledge of the time scale for implementing decisions will agree that if the Minister does not enjoy the sympathy he should receive here he will get it from those affected by the time scale of the immense technological decision which have to be made outside this Committee and Parliament. There ought at least to be a Report of a Select Committee on the Minister's work, with the advantage of many meetings and visits behind it before subjects of this kind are debated.
My second observation is that it is the duty of Parliament to criticise the Executive, of course, and a more general debate such as this must be a debate giving Parliament that opportunity. We have passed the Science and Technology Act and, as the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West (Dr. Bray) said, we are discussing a decision which has been taken. There has been a discussion on where the N.R.D.C. belongs. Sir William Black, then Chairman of the N.R.D.C., said when the Trend Report came out that it would be tragic if the N.R.D.C. lost its present freedom of action and was taken away from the Board of Trade. I do not believe that he would necessarily hold to that statement now in the new circumstances.
I have always accepted the importance of pure science and basic research and the need to pursue knowledge for its own sake. I have also accepted that the pursuit of such knowledge can never be assessed or measured.
This brings me to my third observation. Where does science end and technology begin? The problem is that the path from the nursery or primary school to the modern machine tool or piece of manufacturing equipment on the shop floor is, from an administrative and many other points of view, continuous and continuing. The modern machine tool, or a modern piece of manufacturing equipment, whether press, forge, milling machine, transfer line for machining in an automobile factory, is developed from a scientific analysis of the technological problems with which an industry is faced. There are several demands that have to be met.
Those in charge, whether at the factory or national level should have a full appreciation of the wider issues involved. Perhaps that is background to the discussion we had on management. Therefore, we want a greater knowledge now of technological strategy rather than day-to-day tactics in the management field. We have had this discussion on making engineers and scientists the heads of industry. When one is looking for a head of industry one is looking for a person capable of "driving" the destiny of an individual firm. I use the word, driving, because it is necessary to have a knowledge not only of science but administration and have an understanding of management. I would suggest that the first consideration is the ability to manage and administer. But an essential asset today is a knowledge of the technology with which one is dealing.
It therefore demands that those in charge of policy at the factory level can so crystallise the variables that engineers and designers know what they have to achieve and can find a practical way of doing so. The engineers and designers want to know from the management what they have to set out to do, whether the field be in, for example, aircraft or machine tools. But someone has to lay down the policy. It is the training of this type of person which is more and more important. Having made reference

to those in charge of policy and having decided the course to take, it must be the designers and engineers who must have the necessary technical qualifications whether in hydraulics, electronics or engineering.
Going on from this there is the demand that the individual company should lay the correct emphasis on research and development and there is also the demand that the appropriate research associations which we have discussed, should have adequate direction and guidance. This extends to East Kilbride—the National Engineering Laboratory—to research in our research associations and in the colleges of advanced technology and universities. The point that I want to stress is that technology is not confined to the factory—that is directed only to the shop floor—but that it stretches right back into our universities and ultimately our schools.
The problem facing those on the Trend Committee was the division between education, on the one hand, and technology, on the other. I think that we must accept the present division between technology and, perhaps, education and science. What I think is more important is that there should be a technological impact on the working of science in our schools and colleges of technology.
To digress slightly, it is essential to assess the main obstacles which we have to face. The first one which we have to deal with, is that of resistance to progress on the shop floor. The second obstacle, which I think is all-important, is the lack of awareness by management of the criteria and conditions necessary for survival. So many people have worked in so small an environment and have become effective managers in that environment, that they are not aware of the wider issues.
This may be a criticism of management, but it applies to other countries as well as our own. It is in this field of broadening the outlook of those who have to work on a very narrow front that not only the Minister and his Department has a contribution to play, but which we as a nation have to look at it in greater detail.
I welcome the decisions which have resulted from the Franks Report and


the fact that there are schools of management being established in Manchester and London. A vitally important question I want to ask is what impact is the Minister of Technology able to make on management and management syllabuses? To give an example of an establishment now under the University Grants Council, on which some Members on this side of the House have tabled Questions to the Secretary of State for Education and Science, the Cranfield College of Aeronautics is an amazing mixture of activities. One of these is a works study school. This does valiant work in encouraging work study in various firms. Is work study a technological subject or an academic subject? At the moment it is under the Secretary of State for Education and Science.
I do not suggest that there should be any change, but what I ask the Minister is how can we bring technology to bear in these various schools? It is too early to pursue the extending of the empire of the Minister of Technology. The influence of technology, whether or not through a Minister into the more academic fields, is something that must be pursued earnestly.
We in Parliament and the Government have a task to encourage the application and understanding of technology in our more academic institutes to a much greater degree. For example, a person doing a university course asked me what sort of additional training he should take, having done his honours degree, to accustom himself to management and industrial problems. Where can he get it? We concede that the British Institute of Management has much information which can guide people.
In conclusion, I hope that the Minister will take note of my plea that we should set up adequate machinery for discussing technology and science and not try to tackle the subject in a general debate of this type. Inevitably, Parliament will criticise the work of his Department. There will undoubtedly be many shortcomings, as seen from this side of the House. But this is one of the subjects which, a year ago, when I was supporting the Government of the day, I considered should be taken out of politics to a much greater extent. In this debate it has been decided that this is impossible, but we can have a Select Committee on

Science and Technology and I hope that the Select Committee on Procedure will report favourably on this subject.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Robert Maxwell: I should like to bring to the notice of the Committee this evening four points. The first deals with the rôle of the laboratories of the Atomic Energy Authority. Secondly, I wish to urge my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology to use all his powers of negotiation and persuasion to persuade his colleagues in the Cabinet to give the Ministry of Technology the necessary resources and authority to induce the Government to use its power as a purchaser to compel British industry to modernise itself; to induce them to bring about the urgently needed increase in our exports. The third point I wish to bring to the notice of the Committee is in the nature of a plea to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology, asking him whether it is really necessary to have adopted in the Ministry of Technology a procedure whereby the administrators are on top of the scientists instead of the long-established procedure in the Ministry of Aviation and other Ministries where scientists are used in important rôles and are involved in decisions of policy. They co-operate with their administrative colleagues. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to throw some light on the problem of whether the administrators in this new, important and vital Ministry are about to strangle it.

Mr. Cousins: This point was raised earlier this afternoon when my hon. Friend was not present. The administrators are not on top of the scientists in the Department. The Deputy Chairman of the Ministry of Technology is probably the top scientist in this country. The Controller, Dr. Adams, is the head of the Culham Research Laboratory to whom I referred earlier. It is nonsense to talk about the administrators being on top. The administrators are doing the administrative job, and my Advisory Council has a number of scientific men attached to it.

Mr. Maxwell: I am very obliged to my right hon. Friend. I now accept that the scientists have nothing to fear, that they co-operate with the administrators, but


that the administrators are not there to stifle their initiative and to find excuses as to why they cannot support their projects.
The third point which I wish to bring to the notice of the Committee is the urgent need to get something done about trade associations. I hope that my right hon. Friend, when he winds up the debate, will say that he is perhaps thinking of setting up a Royal Commission to see how the trade associations can play a more positive rôle in getting known scientific and technical principles applied to increase productivity and our competitiveness.
The last point on which I should very much like to hear from my right hon. Friend is what has happened to the plans and discussions which went on before the election when the Federation of British Industries made a proposal that £100 million should be provided for the joint financing of development projects in British industry—£50 million by private industry and £50 million by the Government. This is an important and vital suggestion. No doubt my right hon. Friend will be able to tell us something about it.
I return to the question of the Atomic Energy Authority laboratories. There has perhaps never before been anything as dramatic as the emergence of the atom to focus the attention of the world on the relevance of science and technology to our society. A possible exception has been the development in recent years of space technology. But, as is well known, space exploration is such an expensive toy, or tool, that only the giant nations such as the U.S.S.R. and America can indulge in it. On the other hand, nuclear power is a technology in which a great many countries can and do participate.
There are scores of atomic reactors working safely throughout the world. Indeed, even in the less industrially advanced countries nuclear research has been a useful device for stimulating support for technological and scientific endeavour. In the three countries involved in the original development of nuclear technology—Great Britain, Canada and the United States—great research laboratories were developed in which scientific research was carried forward. These laboratories provided the

fundamental scientific basis for the ultimate development and control of the atom for both warlike and peacelike purposes.
The question now confronting all three of these countries is whether these laboratories, having fulfilled their original purposes, may not already have outlived in principle their usefulness. The productive period for the atom is now just beginning, and the requirements for its fruitful development at this stage of large scale industrial application have changed. Highly sophisticated and imaginative engineering is required rather than science. The type of facilities and the kinds of skills and attitudes required for research in the development of technology as an important economic tool for society are different from those which were required to uncover and explore the basic scientific principle of what, after all, eventually became indispensable military hardware in the form of atom and hydrogen bombs which we all hope will never be used.
There is little reason to believe that the same organisations, people and laboratories which were capable of designing atomic and nuclear bombs would also, ipso facto, be capable of almost any other kind of industrial and technological development. I refer here to a point which I raised in my maiden speech. I said then that what we needed in this country was a tool to find out what we should do with a scientific laboratory whose mission has come to an end. What means should we use for reorientating it? I am sorry to say—and this is no complaint of my right hon. Friend's Department—that this is a very difficult tool and technique to discover. We tend to say, "We have these expensive laboratories and thousands of trained scientists and engineers. Let us find some decent jobs which we might throw to them to keep them busy". This is very dangerous and terribly harmful and the Atomic Energy Authority is well on the way to perpetuating this danger. I am very worried about this, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to throw some light on it.
Indeed, there is every reason to believe that these laboratories cannot be converted to serve a useful purpose. There has been ample evidence of the work done in recent years by the major governmental nuclear laboratories in the United States


that their approach to industrial technology and their failure to understand technological economics have been handicaps in the effort to transfer their skill from their original purpose to new fields. Among the best illustrations of this evidence are some of the proposals for nuclear desalination which have emerged from Governmental laboratories in the United States. I fear that we are on the verge of duplicating the very mistakes that the Americans have made because, as is well known, amongst other civilian projects the Government have entrusted to the atomic energy laboratories the problem of desalination.
The idea that science and particularly technology are universal and that developed knowledge and skills in one area can be transferred across the entire spectrum of scientific and technological problems is a highly questionable proposition. Because a particular laboratory organisation is capable of exploring nuclear fission or fusion or nuclear biology, this does not necessary indicate its competence to explore other technological problems such as desalination.

Dr. Wyndham Davies: The point has already been made today about desalination plants. Would not the hon. Member agree that a great deal of work in this direction has taken place in private engineering companies which has put us ahead of the rest of the world? This was done by private enterprise in this country as distinct from Government action in the United States.

Mr. Maxwell: I entirely agree that private industry has done a great deal, and I am delighted, but this work has been done in conjunction with Government laboratories.
My point about desalination is precisely that this work ought to go back to private industry and I hope to persuade my right hon. Friend by my argument that this might well be a worthwhile proposition.
The Atomic Energy Authority has not only been given research in desalination. Underground direct-current transmission, air pollution control, the development of technologically and economically feasible magneto hydrodynamic generating systems, a better steam turbine and improved steam boilers are other similar technological problems to which some of the

Authority's efforts have been directed in an effort to maintain its workload, to keep its people and its machines and in an effort to justify its demands on the national budget. It does not mean that despite some assertions to the contrary, there would reside in such a laboratory the ability to develop an economically meaningful desalination technology. This does not mean that there does not exist some special civilian-oriented areas of research in which these atomic energy laboratories cannot be used effectively. The areas, however, are bound to be exceedingly limited.
Thus the problem of what to do with these laboratories remains. The point which I am making is that it is wrong and a bad gamble simply to suggest that we should throw them a few jobs to keep them quiet and put them under the carpet in exactly the same way—I hope that I will not be accused of making a political point—as was our Trade deficit of £800 million by the former Administration.
The immediate reaction might be to do away with those laboratories, or, at lease, to curtail them. For one thing, in the light of the presumed general shortage of scientific and technical staff, curtailment of activity by these laboratories would make available such people to industry, where they are urgently needed, to reduce the time scale on which we are able to supply plant and instruments of all kinds. They would help to reduce costs and to increase our competitive power and they would assist industry in increasing our exports.
However, the existence of these laboratories over a long period has resulted in the development of strongly entrenched vested interests so that to curtail their activities or to eliminate them entirely would not be any solution and, I fear, would not be likely to be practical. And yet it is clear that these laboratories must not be permitted to become merely work projects. The tasks assigned to them must be carefully selected and delineated within their particular competence and always to the fullest extent possible. Adjustments need to be made in their organisation and personnel in accordance with the new kinds of work they may be required to do.
Britain needs a resurgence of the kind of science and technology that for many decades not only kept us in the forefront of the world's science and technology but made us one of the world's mightiest nations, if not the mightiest. However, the requirements for a dynamic industrial technology differ markedly from those necessary for science, and the two must not be confused or mixed. It may well be that the large Government laboratories can find a useful rôle in applied science. In my view, basic science is best done at the universities. But it is likely that the technological research and development and engineering technology required for dynamic industrial growth is best performed by the industrial organisations most closely concerned.
Thus, while Government laboratories, as exemplified by the laboratories of the Atomic Energy Authority, may be able to perform well in a very limited area, the powers for desalination research, future development of electric power, and wider desalination technology, are likely to make the best progress under the technological leadership of the manufacturers of the equipment and those responsible for the production of electric energy and water. The laboratories in turn need to adjust themselves to the more limited field or fields assigned to them. It really is quite monstrous that once we assign priority No. 1 to an important national problem somebody then ordains that we have to continue to spend money on that kind of scale. What was a priority No. 1 10 years ago may be priority No. 50 today. I think it is important that something be done about this.
I should like to say a few words now about the nature and meaurement of technical change. What is this, really? The economically relevant notion of technical progress is reasonably well defined. A production function is a set of inputs and outputs which can be attained by some producing entity such as a firm. Technical progress consists of an enlargement of that set in the sense of permitting the production of more of at least one output with given imputs without producing less of other outputs. I took a long time to get the economists to teach me this and I hope I have not confused

the Committee, but I have not seen a better definition of it and I hope that hon. Members will compare it when they read it tomorrow in HANSARD.
It is a classical proposition that under certain assumptions competitors' markets will lead to an optimum allocation of productive resources. In recent years considerable effort has been expended to determine the extent to which investment in new technology is an exception to that proposition. Leading experts give two reasons for believing that competitive markets will under-allocate resources to the production of new technology. This is one of the reasons why a Ministry of Technology, regardless of under what Government, becomes absolutely essential, because in a competitive economy, private enterprise—and some hon. Members have made this point this afternoon—firms do not allocate sufficient resources to research and development and these kinds of resources can only come from the general body of taxpayers, and there is no better way of having some of these resources channelled than through the Ministry of Technology. The first thing about why private industry cannot do more, or has not been investing as much as it should do, is really a question of uncertainty. Investment in new technology is uncertain as to how much the discovery of new technology will cost and as to what its uses will be. Therefore, one cannot really get an increase.
The second reason why private enterprise on its own is handicapped is economy of scale. New technology is often only useful if the product or process is to be produced on a large scale, and thus the large capital investment required for a newly developed automated process may make the process prohibitively excessive for small outputs but very economical for large outputs. Thus economies of scale are important in both the production and use of new technology, and this is, of course, why, for instance, science and technology in the United States are progressing at this fantastic rate.

Mr. E. S. Bishop: My hon. Friend has mentioned several times that these great projects should be handed over to private enterprise. While one appreciates the point that he is making, I believe it is true to say that 60 per cent. of all research and development


costs in this country is borne by the taxpayer, and, indeed, my hon. Friend has already suggested that recently. If he is suggesting that private enterprise will do the job better than a public authority, such as the Atomic Energy Authority, how does he suggest we can control or ensure the best use of the public money which is to be put into it? If he can suggest that the capital cost of investment can be borne by private enterprise, that is a rather different point.

Mr. Maxwell: My hon. Friend has misunderstood me. What I am suggesting is that the work done by the A.E.A., for instance relating to transmission and research and development on these nuclear stations, had best be handed over to the Central Electricity Generating Board and the people who know what is wanted. As regards desalination, we have a first-rate private industry willing and able to undertake this work, and it should do joint research and development with the Government, on the same basis as is now being done with I.C.T., and I hope that I have made that clear.
It is worth asking why it should be necessary to subsidise the spread of new technology. The answer is that uncertainty and economies of scale cause medium and small firms to under invest in the creation of new technology, and these same firms also under invest in the adoption of new technology. It is often observed in industry between the best practices and the worse ones, which suggests that this is a very serious matter, and must be dealt with if we are to achieve the rapid and sustained economic growth that we need.
I now turn to the trade research associations. I hope that my right hon. Friend will say something about a commission which he is appointing to report on the value and function of trade research associations, and how and in what way they can be made more effective, better used, and better supported by industry. Research associations should be enabled to carry out pilot plant development, and financing should be done jointly by the Government and industry, along the lines of the suggestions made by the F.B.I., or some variation of them. Industry and trade associations should be encouraged to appoint consultants

from universities and technical colleges who will keep them in touch with the latest results in science and technology.
The creation and application of new technology in industry is likely to take several years before the country can see some massive results and receive the benefits of it. This is why I was rather astonished that the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms. Marples), in a knockabout speech this afternoon when opening this debate, implied that my right hon. Friend had not produced all kinds of rabbits out of the hat and put everything right, which the former Administration was unable to do in the previous 13 years. The scientific and industrial community, and business men of this country who, in co-operation with the Government, are fighting a battle for our survival and trying to hold the value of sterling will not forgive the right hon. Gentleman for treating this important matter in this kind of nonsensical political way.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me for saying so, but I was upset that he treated this important and significant subject in such a lighthearted manner. This may be good politics, but this is a serious matter, and it deserves better treatment. Instead of adopting their present tactics, the Opposition would do better to concentrate on discovering how this new Ministry of Technology can be made more effective, more powerful, and more incisive. They should do this in a constructive manner instead of the destructive manner in which my right hon. Friend has been treated in all matters relating to his Ministry.
I turn now to my third point, namely, how the Government might be able to use their power as purchasers to induce industry to modernise itself and to increase its exports. Does the Committee know that the Government are spending a total of £6,000 million per annum on the acquisition of goods and services?
At present the Government's procurement policies, with some exceptions, militate against innovation, because their contracts and specifications insist on the purchase of well-tried and old-fashioned products at the lowest prices. This, in effect, discourages industry from bidding for these orders with new and better products. For example, if a local authority decides to purchase a new water


purification plant or sewage disposal plant the engineers responsible for writing the specifications for the plant are concerned merely with answering three questions: Has the plant that it wants to purchase been operating well in some other authority for the past two or three decades? Have they bought it at the lowest price? Can they obtain this plant or service with a minimum amount of trouble and inconvenience to themselves?
Similar considerations apply in respect of procurement officers who buy machine tools and presses for Government ordnance factories, or clothing and jerrycans for the Armed Forces. The question how to use the purchasing power of the Government to solve this problem is very difficult, but it must be tackled, because if it is successfully applied, it is likely to yield, quickly, considerable benefits to the British economy.
For years Governments of both Parties have been telling the business community how urgent and necessary it is to increase exports. A former Member of the House went so far as to tell them that "exporting is fun". But people who are engaged in industry and exports are tired of these palliatives. When this Administration came in at least industry was given an incentive to export, but it was not enough. Our exports have been falling in the last few months, and if they do not rise during the next six months our creditors will rapidly become seriously worried about our ability to pay our way.
Manufacturers who have been growing fat on Government contracts year in and year out, and whose names are on the list of various Ministries as approved suppliers, would take action if they were suddenly to discover that unless they increased their exports by 10 per cent. their names would be removed from that list. I submit that for the first time, and very promptly, the chairmen, managing directors and sales directors of all those companies would pull their fingers out and do something to increase their percentage of exports. They take no notice of shareholders.

The Temporary Chairman (Dame Edith Pitt): Order. The debate is concerned with technology. The hon. Member is ranging very wide and I should be glad if he would bring himself back to order.

Mr. Maxwell: The Government should institute an urgent study to see what changes are necessary in their procurement policies. They should instruct, as quickly as possible, all their buying officers, both at national and local level, to change their procurement policies and conditions so as to encourage and reward with orders those firms who innovate and use technology to improve their products and services.
It would also be appropriate for the Ministry of Technology to set up a department which would provide guarantees and insurance facilities to buyers of advanced plants against their malfunctioning. Where necessary the Government should be prepared to pay a higher price for the technologically advanced product, instead of being content with the old-fashioned one. This would do exactly the same thing in assisting real innovation as the E.C.G.D. is doing in assisting exports. There is no reason why the Ministry should not set up such an insurance scheme, because if an authority is going to put down money for a plant which has not been tried out for many years, and if a failure occurs it wants to be assured that it will not have to fall back on the ratepayers to replace the plant.
In this way British industry will quickly feel that the Government mean business and will rapidly change its outmoded and wrong attitude towards applying technology. Such a policy would have the additional advantage that British industry would begin to produce products which were well in advance of their international competitors and which would give them a considerable advantage in the world export markets. I am convinced that the Ministry of Technology should help to provide the climate and support for work in universities and colleges of technology related to the particular practical needs of our civilian economy and society, that the Minister of Technology should ensure that the Government plays its full part in the encouragement by applying the results of science and engineering to economic growth.
Finally, we expect this new Ministry to encourage the establishment of the institutions and the environment which most effectively puts science to practical


use, diffuses the results of technology throughout society and encourages even higher levels of innovation in British industry.

8.51 p.m.

Mr. Eric Lubbock: I am most relieved to be able to get into the debate at last. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell) signalled to me before he rose to speak that he would make a short speech. I dread to think what it would have been like if it had been a long one. I hope that "Crossbencher" has been sitting with his stopwatch in the Gallery while the hon. Member was voicing his rather heterodox opinions on the Atomic Energy Authority, with which I will disagree in a few minutes. I hope that, in the next Honours List, the hon. Gentleman will be offered a seat in another place, so that other people will have to suffer him instead of us.
The debate has been far reaching, touching on the machinery of government, teaching machines, scientific and technological manpower, the rôle of the investment allowances and the future of the Patent Office. There are many threads which I should have liked to follow, but time allows only a few. I would follow one remark of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West (Dr. Bray). I agree with him that we should leave the Ministry of Technology alone for the time being and give it a chance to work out its place in the machinery of government, and that we should not prolong the discussions which took place on the Science and Technology Bill and at the time of the General Election.
The hon. Member was right to say that at least five years is required before we can evaluate the results of setting up a separate Ministry of Technology and that, in the meantime, we should, whether we agree or disagree with the setting up of this separate Ministry, back the Government in what they are trying to do.
But this does not inhibit us from discussing those extensions of the Ministry's functions which we should like to see. Many suggestions have been made—for instance, that the Minister should take an interest in industries other than those for which he is directly responsible. Of course, the Minister is not prevented from

using his powers and from increasing the application of technology in other industries merely because he is not the sponsor of those industries. I hope that, in the case of building, he is having discussions with both the Minister of Public Building and Works and the Minister of Housing and Local Government on how technology can be harnessed to the expansion of the housing drive.
A personal wish of mine is that the Minister should take a greater interest in the shipbuilding industry, particularly after what we heard in the House last week about the industry at the conference on automation.
I am not accusing the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) alone of this, but I think that the Tories should be very careful not to allow their personal feelings about the Minister of Technology—which I know a great many of them have—to enter into discussion of the rôle of the Ministry of Technology. I detected an undertone of this in some speeches. We must try to get away from personal feelings. I agree with what the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) said. We cannot take technology out of politics entirely, and we do not want to do so, but we must try to approach it with an unbiased mind and not allow personal considerations to enter into it.
The right hon. Member for Wallasey was too hard in his criticisms. He said that no report had so far been issued on the telecommunications and electronics industries. Only the other day, one of his right hon. Friends was asking for careful consideration to be given to those industries and was urging the Minister not to get hurried into hasty decisions which might later on be regretted. That is a much more sensible attitude, though it would be helpful if the Minister could tell us roughly when he expects to be in a position to make these statements. Will it be before the Summer Recess, or shall we have to wait until next Session before we hear anything positive about his plans for those two industries?
The second thing about which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wallasey complained was the lack of data, which, he said, had not been published and which were never published under the previous Administration. But he expects


very many things to have happened in the short period of office of the Government which did not happen under 13 years of the previous Administration. One could apply the same reasoning to his remarks on the comparison between the number of computers employed in different fields in this country and in the United States. It is a shocking thing that in this country we only have five computers in the whole of agricultural research, whereas there are over ten times that number in the United States. He told us that in health, education and welfare there are 112 computers in the United States and only 2½ here. Surely this was the very purpose of establishing the Ministry of Technology, so that we could do something about the shortcomings of the last Administration.
Perhaps the only sense in which these criticisms are justified is that the Labour Party, during the last election, raised the hopes of the electorate that in the field of technology, things were possible within a short space of time, which we know it is impracticable to expect. The Prime Minister himself, in his great Scarborough speech, to which I listened with much admiration on the television at the time, said some things that were rather likely to lead to extravagant expectations. One could pick out several quotations, but, if I may mention one, he talked of
Mobilising scientific research in this country in producing a new technologcal breakthrough.
Later in the same speech he said:
I believe that we could within a measureable period of time establish new industries which would make us once again one of the foremost industrial nations of the world.
This is just not possible if, by "a measureable period of time", we mean one or two years. We have to have very much longer to put into effect what the Minister and hon. Members on both sides would like to see done.
I think that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West was one of those whose expectations were unreasonably aroused, because I have been looking back at a very interesting article which he wrote in Electronics Weekly before the last election. I was not surprised to hear him say this afternoon that he had some misgivings on the case, because here is what the hon. Member had to

say in that journal on 30th September, 1964:
The Ministry of Technology will not wait for ideas to be put to it though it must be receptive to ideas from outside. It will be pursuing a deliberate strategy of technological advance, thrashed out with industry, published in detail and backed by the financial resources of government.
That is very fine, and just what I would like to see and what I know the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West would like to see, as well. But it is being too ambitious to expect this to happen within a few months of government, and what I would blame the Labour Party for is not their failure to do anything so far, but their undue arousing of the expectations of the people during the election. It is sometimes said that people are not on oath in lapidary inscriptions, and I think that that applies to General Election campaigns as well, because many things that are said in those circumstances cannot possibly come true.

Mr. Marples: But those extravagant promises did get the votes.

Mr. Lubbock: There may well have been engineers, technologists and scientists who voted for the Labour Party in the expectation that these things could come about, but the realistic ones must have realised that it was impossible for us to proceed at the pace we were led to expect.
The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West, in his more sober moments—and I mean that in a figurative sense—will recognise that he would not have expected much more from the Government than they have managed to achieve so far. I am trying to make it plain that I am criticising not the Government's actions, but the high hopes which they raised in the minds of the electorate at the time of the last General Election.
I disagree profoundly with what the hon. Member for Buckingham said about the Atomic Energy Authority. I believe that it has an important rôle to play in various fields of research other than those in which it has been traditionally engaged. I thought that at the time this matter was under discussion in the House we had an inadequate explanation of the type of work which the Government had in mind, but since we now know that desalination is one of


the most important aspects which it will explore, I would agree that it has a tremendous job to do, and I am heartily in favour of it. It is impossible to place this kind of undertaking on the shoulders of private industry, for it is far too large.
Although I very much hope that the co-operation of private industry will be sought in the manufacture of the associated equipment, I feel that it is only the Atomic Energy Authority, or perhaps the Central Electricity Generating Board, which has the enormous sources of heat necessary for desalination on a large scale. The whole secret of this project is the larger the scale the more favourable the economics become. It is very sensible for the Atomic Energy Authority to be involved in this project.
In fact, I think that we should consider other possible avenues of research in which large-scale sources of heat are necessary. I have sent the Minister some data which I have from the Swedish experience of the use of atomic energy plant for district heating. While they have not got beyond the experimental stage in that country, the time may come with A.G.R., or perhaps, in the next generation, the fast breeder reactor, when it is so cheap to generate heat by atomic means that we can think of the large-scale district heating plant which so far has not been economic in this country. It is a possibility which we could hear in mind for the future. Again, perhaps on a very large scale is the heat required for processing industries such as the paper industry. It uses heat on a very large scale, and nuclear generation might be suitable.
I should like to pay my tribute to the Atomic Energy Authority for what it has done so far. The advanced gas cool reactor is a magnificent tribute to British engineering and one which we should shout from the roof-tops. I entirely agree that we do not give sufficient publicity to the wonderful achievements of British industry, of which this is an outstanding example. Another example which I should like to mention is the new station being built at Wylfa Head, in Anglesey, which, when completed, will be the largest nuclear power station in the world, generating over 1,100 mW. If this nuclear power station were in Texas how much more one would hear of it. In this country it is scarcely mentioned, and I dare say that some hon. Members

have never heard of it. We should take sufficient pride in our achievements to boast about them to the rest of the world.
The fast breeder reactor will be a great break-through for Britain and I should like to see it pressed on with as quickly as possible. I was a little disappointed to hear the Minister say that within the next few months the Atomic Energy Authority will be submitting proposals to him for the construction of a prototype station. I urge him to get on with it as quickly as possible so that we may maintain the world lead which we undoubtedly have.
When the right hon. Gentleman makes his decision about the siting of this prototype station I very much hope that he will bear in mind the strong claims of Dounreay. I know that he has been there for discussions with the various interests and that this point of view has been put to him most powerfully by my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. George Y. Mackie).
This is not a constituency matter. There are important considerations which should lead the Ministry to make the decision in favour of Dounreay. The technical team is assembled there. All the very expensive works involved in the fast breeder reactor and in the associated materials testing reactor are there. There must have been quite a lot of social investment as well in housing for the Atomic Energy Authority staff, and so on, which would all be lost if we could not continue to operate from that part of the world. The disastrous social consequences of failure to continue with the Atomic Energy Authority's establishment in that part of the world are incalculable. I remind the Minister that as recently as a month ago the Chairman of the South of Scotland Electricity Board stated that this prototype reactor should be located at Dounreay.
I hope that the Minister, in his general programme of work, will concentrate on research which will improve our balance of payments position. This is one thing that the hon. Member for Buckingham said with which I agree. I am sorry to see that, as usual, the hon. Gentleman has left the Chamber immediately after concluding his remarks. I think that by the direction of our research work we could very greatly improve our balance of payment situation. There must be many


examples which can be quoted. There is one which I drew to the Minister's attention quite recently, concerning the application of high pressure technology to the manufacture of industrial diamonds. I am given to undersand that we import quite large quantities of industrial diamonds and that these could well be manufactured in this country.
I was surprised to learn from the Answer to a Question I asked the President of the Board of Trade recently that these figures are not separately available. The Minister of Technology could look into the kind of research work which might have an influence on the balance of payments and he could make a point of discussing this with the President of the Board of Trade and obtaining figures where they are not already available from the Trade and Navigation Accounts.
In the few minutes remaining to me I want to say a few words about why automation is not applied more extensively in this country. For the last three weeks we have had upstairs an extremely interesting conference on automation which has been arranged by Elliott Automation. The interest shown by hon. Members in this conference has been quite remarkable. I was surprised at how many there have been at these sessions. I am sure that we have all derived tremendous value from them. We heard at the conference of applications of automation in defence, in medicine, in the process industries, in traffic, in shipping, and so on.
We heard some fantastic success stories. We heard about the horizons which are opening up in the application of computers. There are quite breath-taking savings in some of these fields. We have reached what I call the second revolution in the application of computers. We are now getting away from those which were employed in the obvious arithmetical processes such as wages calculation and have come more on to the application of computers to industrial processes.
If the variables in an industrial process can be measured and fed into a computer, the process can be controlled by means of the computer. Some of the savings quoted to us were fantastic. The interesting question to me, and, I think, to many of those who attended the sessions, was why automation is being applied so slowly. If these savings are possible, why

is not there a queue of industrialists at the door of every computer manufacturer? Why, for instance, has this country no fully automated ship on order? Here I am sorry to say that I must agree, once again, with the hon. Member for Buckingham that it is a case where the Government's purchasing power could be used. The Royal Navy must always be ordering ships, yet we were told by the experts from Elliott Automation that this country has no fully-automated ship on order.
In this country again, they said, there is only one centre where the application of automation to medicine is going on at the moment as compared with quite a number in the United States. Again and again they said that we have been so much slower than these other countries in the application of automation in spite of the fantastic advantages of the process. I do not think that this is because of fear of change on the part of workers.
We have had reports that we shall be short of skilled labour for many years to come. The National Economic Development Council has made that clear. Nor do I think that this is because of difficulties within the automation industry itself. One expert told me that there was economic application for ten times more computers than we have installed at the moment and that firms would be ready to provide them if only industries would see the benefits which they would bring.
It seems to me that the difficulty is that one cannot be sure of benefits until one has applied these processes. It is an act of faith. The Wolvercote Mill has been cited in this connection. One cannot measure the return on an investment until one has employed a system analyst to go through all the processes and the money has by then been practically invested. We need a religious fervour in favour of automation in industry, paralleled by a sense of urgency in the Government themselves.
There is no doubt that the Minister could do very much more, though of course he has no influence over fiscal measures such as direct purchasing power and the influencing of local authorities. He could apply to the computer manufacturers the same ideas as he has applied to the machine tool industry, that is there could be the ordering of pre-production batches to enable manufacturers to go


ahead with a particularly promising line when they have not had orders from industry.
Let us, for goodness' sake, not bring political acrimony into this subject of technology. We are all converts to the application of technology and automation in industry now and it should not be so difficult to secure a bipartisan approach to the subject. There is a tremendous amount still to do and we should not dissipate our energies by political quarrels across the Floor. I hope that in future we shall also demonstrate our interest in technology by appearing in these debates in rather greater strength than we are here today.

9.12 p.m.

Mr. John Biffen: I beg to move, That Class IV, Vote 18 (Ministry of Technology) be reduced by £1,000.
This has been an extremely valuable Supply Day debate. I think that the Minister will agree that it has been very constructive in character and that there have been a great many contributions which have been bipartisan and uncontroversial. It is obviously true that all parts of the Committee are very much seized with the sociological problems clearly implicit in the emergence of technology and automation. The contributions particularly of the hon. Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Palmer) and the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) on the problems of education and industrial training were very much appreciated, and I should like to pay tribute to the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) on the problems implicit for the structure of British industry in this subject.
All politicians to some degree are frustrated business consultants, in the sense that we very much enjoy preaching on what we think to be desirable attitudes in British management and British work-people. In the short time during which I have been a Member of Parliament one thing which I have discovered worries hon. Members is that as a result of the findings of the Boundary Commission we shall be redistributed over the job. As long as we find this fear in the very heart of this place it ill behoves us to be too moral in our strictures on the world outside.
I should like to keep at least an opening spirit of bipartisanship by saying to the Minister how very much I agreed with him when he said that we must not denigrate too much what we ourselves are able to do. I am sure that this is taken to heart in all parts of the Committee because, whatever else happens as a result of our debates, it is essential that, although we must not become complacent, we do not become so neurotic that we convince ourselves that this is a nation of Luddites. Clearly, it is not.
I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) remind the Committee that in the United States, for instance, 64 per cent. of the machine tools in use are 10 years old and 21 per cent. are 20 years old. Those figures are a healthy reminder that many of the problems which, at times, we feel must be unique to this island are, in fact, problems international in character which affect a great many of our competitor nations.
I fear that I must now stray a little and be somewhat more controversial. We are moving a reduction in the Vote. But before I go further, I wish to try to establish a measure of bipartisanship with the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock). [HON. MEMBERS: "He has gone."] Yes; I see that bipartisanship is wearing a bit thin already. However, the hon. Gentleman made the point that there was, as it were, a great revolution of rising expectation generated by the Prime Minister's speech at Scarborough in 1963. A great deal of our criticism arises from the hopes which were created by the attitude of the Prime Minister and the party opposite in the run-up period to the General Election. The same point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Peter Griffiths).
Nevertheless, whatever scepticism there might have been on these benches—I readily concede that we were rather sceptical about it—there were one or two converts who succumbed to the Prime Minister's siren words, not least The Times. I do not normally regard The Times as an organ easily won over by the Prime Minister's words—I know that some of my hon. Friends may disagree about that, and I express only my own view—but The Times heralded the advent


of the Minister of Technology in a quite remarkable leading article on 21st October. The Committee may like to reflect on some of the hopes expressed in it. Speaking of the Minister, The Times said:
His voice will be heard when it comes to deciding which industries should be run down and which helped by tax incentive to expand
It went on to conclude—it may have been a little prophetic—
… his strong personality may help him in the inevitable Cabinet arguments about priorities".
The Committee will have to judge for itself to what extent The Times was prophetic in that instance. But a great deal of our complaint, developed today by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples), is that the Ministry of Technology has not developed in such a way as to measure up to the expectations which might have been generated before and after the last election.
We have tried by a number of questions, particularly from my right hon. Friend, to examine the evolution of the Ministry of Technology since last autumn and to consider its self-avowed rôle as the spear-head of the Government's programme for industrial innovation. As I said, we do not disguise that on this side we have always been a little sceptical about it. On 11th December, in the debate on the Science and Technology Bill, my right hon. Friend, as he put it, "wondered how Mr. Cousins would operate his Ministry". That language was appropriate then, of course, because the right hon. Gentleman was not a Member of the House. My right hon. Friend said:
I am, therefore, sorry that we do not have the advantage of listening to Mr. Cousins explaining precisely his duties, functions and objectives."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th December, 1964; Vol. 703, c. 1992.]
We have had that advantage this afternoon, but all our doubts remain. The Minister's speech was detailed, thoughtful and lengthy, but it did nothing to remove the doubts expressed earlier by my right hon. Friend. Perhaps the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour will seek to remedy the position.
There remains, however, a series of unanswered questions concerning the

relationship between the Ministry of Technology and other Government Departments and it was this argument that was so particularly detailed by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke). I invite the Committee to look at a few of those relationships. For example, the Minister is sponsor of the telecommunications industry, but we still await a statement which will clearly show where his responsibility begins and that of the Postmaster-General ends.
Has the Ministry of Technology any interest in the tracking or the development of space communication satellites? Perhaps an even more relevant aspect is that the Post Office spends a considerable amount on the telecommunications industry annually. Has the right hon. Gentleman any say on how that money is spent? If I may use words dear to the hearts of hon. Members opposite, is he consulted on the purposive use of the public money involved with a view to producing certain results in the industry?
The right hon. Gentleman is also a sponsor of the electronics industry. What are his relations with the Ministry of Aviation? The Ministry of Aviation has enormous purchasing power which can and does have material consequences for the electronics industry. Has the Minister of Technology any say in how that money is to be used?
Was the right hon. Gentleman consulted over the major decisions on the TSR2 and other changes of aviation policy which must materially have affected the electronics industry? Perhaps the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give us some examples of the administrative liaison which, we hope, exists between the Ministry of Technology and the Ministry of Aviation. It is precisely answers to this kind of question that we feel entitled to have and it is because there have been no satisfactory answers so far that we feel justified in moving a reduction in the Vote.
Another relationship which interest us is that between the Minister of Technology and the Department of Economic Affairs. We should be interested to know how the Ministry liaises with the industry development councils for electronics and machine tools because they are both industries that the right hon. Gentleman seeks


to sponsor. For example, did the Ministry conduct any study on its own account of the machine tool industry independent of the D.E.A., or did the right hon. Gentleman merely accept the proposals of the Machine-Tool Industry Development Council other than those that the Treasury would not allow to be accepted?
Finally, and probably most important, we should like to know a little more about the relationship between the Ministry and the Treasury. We will long remember the description of the Treasury given by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West (Dr. Bray), in a characteristic speech. I am sorry that I was taking a snack during the first half, but I came in for what I am sure was the more delightful half and which contained the references to the Treasury.
Our concern particularly arises from the statement that the right hon. Gentleman made on the machine tool industry on 14th June. He said that he was discussing the whole question of the fiscal arrangements for capital equipment with the Treasury. Are we to understand that the proposals for any fiscal changes affecting the machine tool industry will only be announced by him after the Treasury has completed its general review? He will appreciate that this is a matter of significance if only because of the compelling speech by the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne. Has the right hon. Gentleman any scope for independent action over the industries of which he is sponsor?
Another major issue concerns the function of sponsorship which, we are told, is a characteristic of the Ministry of Technology. The Minister told us this afternoon that he was the sponsor for four industries—computers, machine tools, electronics and telecommunications. I would very much appreciate, and I am sure that the entire Committee would, being told more about what the right hon. Gentleman and his Ministry conceive to be embraced by the terms "sponsorship". Does he hope to shape and guide these sponsored industries?
We are entitled to interpret the functions of sponsorship against the fairly robust declarations of the Prime Minister and many others on the developing rôle of State intervention in those areas of industry which are intimately concerned with science and scientific development. I would be very interested to know quite

what the Minister himself had in mind when he said, for example, that he intended to take up the machine tools industry and shake it, rather like President Johnson and his beagles. This just will not do. It is remarks of that kind, set against the background of interventionist desires, which lead us to be very suspicious, and we merely seek information and perhaps we are now to get it.

Mr. Cousins: It is rather regrettable that questions of this kind should be addressed to me now when, if they had been addressed to me by the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples), I could have answered them in my speech. The question is now being addressed to my hon. Friend. What I meant by what I am alleged to have said—it might as well be noted that it went on record in the Press at the time and in the House subsequently—was that in different circumstances I would have said that I would take the machine tool industry and shake it, but in the circumstances in which I was now operating I had to use different words. I was prepared to continue the discussions with the machine tool industry and I reported to the House of Commons on the discussions and on the details of agreement which had been reached.

Mr. Biffen: I thank the right hon. Gentleman and I accept his explanation, but I assure him that I have a good deal more confidence in the ability of the Parliamentary Secretary to answer the debate than the right hon. Gentleman apparently has. I am sorry if he thinks that these are unfair questions, but they seem to flow directly—and I thought might even be called repetitious—from the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey.

Mr. Bernard Conlan: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the machine tool industry leaves much to be desired and itself has recognised this to be the case, so much so that it is expending a great deal of money on research and development. [Interruption.] I am—

The Temporary Chairman: Order. When an hon. Member gives way it is only for the purpose of a short intervention.

Mr. Conlan: Will the hon. Gentleman appreciate that the machine tool industry itself recognises its limitations and its difficulties and is trying to put right the deficiencies of neglect over many years?

Mr. Biffen: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on having made his speech even at this late stage of the debate. I accept what he has said about the problems of the machine tool industry. Nevertheless, it is precisely the kind of statement about the machine tool industry which we had on 14th June, when there was a great deal of imprecise information about what the Government would do and a complete inability on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to give us any conception of what the actual financial amounts were, which raise the much wider issues which have been mentioned among others by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell) and which have been unanswered today.
Just what are the views of the right hon. Gentleman and his Ministry about the use of the purchasing power of his Ministry and perhaps the use of that purchasing power to alter the structure of any of the sponsored industries, computers or machine tools? Because if it is the view of the Minister that he has a budget to use purposefully to this end, perhaps he can tell us what kind of a budget? Does he recall that on 30th March he was unable to tell me, in answer to one of those 40-odd Questions which apparently gave him some concern, what share of the total output of his sponsored industries was accounted for by purchases from the public sector? I would have thought that the information was of very considerable concern to his Ministry and I hope that, at the close of this debate, we may be told that the information is now available. If it is not, are we now to assume that the Minister does not intend to use public purchasing to shape the development and fortunes of the sponsored industries?
I think that this is a matter which has aroused considerable interest on both sides of the Committee and one on which the right hon. Gentleman throughout his speech earlier this afternoon was conspicuously reluctant to deal with. I promised that I would try to keep my remarks reasonably brief, but I have been subject to one or two interventions. I have no wish to be unnecessarily controversial

and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not think I am being in any sense inspired by animus if I now turn to one of the very broad points concerning the rôle of the Minister, because I do not believe that any examination of the structure of his Ministry gives one a great deal of confidence about the ability of the Ministry through its administrative structure to achieve a great deal.
I think that there is a certain argument to be made that the personality of the Minister himself can certainly help in certain areas and certain directions. It is his personality and his reputation which invests some degree of authority in his Ministry. This is certainly claimed for the right hon. Gentleman. It has been claimed that he is well fitted to argue the benefits of automation with the trade unionists of this country, and to disarm their fears and their traditional conservatism. It has been claimed that his trade union experience gives him that advantage and I think it is a perfectly fair point. I repeat the question put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey—which I do not recall received a satisfactory answer—namely, whether the Minister has any plans for carrying out studies of automation in the docks?
I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am not making this comment in any narrow or personal sense. I believe it is a perfectly genuine point to make. I think that for a trading nation whose dependence upon exports is something about which we are reminded almost daily, it would be well and fitting that a first priority of his Ministry should be to concern itself about technology in the docks. Any beliefs I had in that direction would certainly be confirmed by the recent comments of Sir Arthur Kirby, Chairman of the British Transport Docks Board, when he presented his recent second Annual Report to Parliament. If I may remind the Minister of the words used by Sir Arthur at the Press Conference when he presented this Report, he said that:
Push-button ship-loading methods would be in use in five years' time, and in ten years in wide use.
He concluded by saying:
Push-button methods are bound to come. One reason for labour troubles at the docks is the traditional loading methods which have not moved away from Carthaginian times.


Those are his words and I believe they indicate a very fruitful field for work on behalf of the Ministry of Technology. I ask the Minister to appreciate that that comment is offered purely constructively.
Having listened to a great part of the debate, and in particular to the Minister's speech, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion, regrettable though it is, that the Minister of Technology remains primarily, if not entirely, a public relations appointment. He is a Minister who has still little semblance of executive authority. The right hon. Gentleman brought a considerable reputation for executive authority to the office which was created last autumn. All I can say is that the tasks which have been given to him in no way match his previous authority.
We had precedent for a biblical analogy from the hon. Member for West Lothian. Therefore, I suggest that we might call the Minister a shorn Samson, except that that would invite the somewhat improbable supposition that the Prime Minister was Delilah and the even more improbable supposition that my hon. Friends were the Phillistines. But one thing is certain: there is growing disappointment and disillusionment that the Ministry of Technology has in no way lived up to the confident and fulsome promises made by the Labour Party that it uniquely understood the problems of technological change and that the advent of a Labour Government would make a major contribution to improved British economic efficiency.
We have a Minister who is undoubtedly sincere in wishing to promote a wider use and acceptance of new techniques but with no real terms of reference and, I fear, a chronic inability successfully to prosecute his own demarcation disputes in the Whitehall shipyard. It is more in sadness than in anger that we move the reduction in the Vote.

9.37 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Richard Marsh): A number of hon. Members have said during the debate that the whole subject of technology should be taken out of politics and that it was a non-political issue. I can understand this. I think that we all accept this approach. The definition is rather different. From

experience, I have come to the conclusion that, on the whole, when hon. Members talk about taking things out of politics they mean supporting the Conservative Party and that when they talk about being non-political this is all right as long as it is directed at the Labour Party.

Sir Knox Cunningham: Reverse it.

Mr. Marsh: I do not know where the hon. and learned Gentleman has been all day, but he has obviously drawn a lot of inspiration from somewhere.
As I say, a number of hon. Members opposite, who clearly take a great nonparty interest in this subject, have made this point. But if hon. and right hon. Members opposite wanted to lift this subject out of politics and to have a discussion about technology on its merits, it seems to me slightly strange that they should slap on a three-line Whip and move a Motion of censure on the Minister before they knew what he had to say. [Interruption.] I always think that the right hon. Gentleman is the embodiment of the Conservative intellectual, a sort of primitive Powell.
The right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) dispelled any doubts that we might have had about whether this was to be a non-party debate. He made a very enjoyable speech which we all enjoyed, not least the right hon. Gentleman. It was primarily focused on an American booklet which he produced which contained some very serious statistics showing just how far behind this country had dropped compared with some of its foreign competitors. The right hon. Gentleman quoted from the booklet figures which were accepted on all sides as extremely serious figures. One does not doubt this, because the ability of this country to remain a technologically advanced nation is essential to everybody's standard of living.
The significant thing about the booklet, however, was that it was published in July 1964. When it was published the right hon. Gentleman was a Member of the Cabinet. It took him 12 months not only to read it but to realise its implications. Having spent 13 years with that lot opposite, he then came and said to my right hon. Friend, "What have you been doing for the last eight months?" The


right hon. Gentleman went on to describe us, I think with some justification, on the basis of his quotation, as a nation of part-time amateurs compared with the American professionals. At that time, however, our affairs were being managed by another firm. We now have a different management. At no stage did the right hon. Gentleman make any criticism of his own Government—at least, if he did, they did not take any notice of it.
Everybody accepts that this country over a period of years, for some reason or other, found itself facing difficulties in the struggle to stay abreast technologically. For 13 years nothing was done about this, or, if something was done, on the right hon. Gentleman's own figures, it did not work. The Labour Government then took office and we decided to embark upon a number of policies designed to challenge that position to try to make the country a major technologically advanced country. Without a solitary constructive suggestion, right hon. and hon. Members opposite turn up here and then start to criticise everything we have done, saying at the same time that this is not really a party debate, just as if we had only suddenly thought about it. They cannot get away with that.
An interesting feature of the debate is that very few hon. Members have challenged the idea of a Ministry of Technology. Indeed, no one has argued against our objectives. Some hon. Members, on either side of the Committee, have suggested that the Ministry is too constrained, that it has too narrow a front and that the empire of my right hon. Friend should be extended. I do not intend to embark upon that subject. It is not one in which a junior Minister should get involved.
Some hon. Members have said that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology was not ruthless enough with industry. The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) talked about discriminating in the public sector of industry against private companies which were not technologically advanced. If my right hon. Friend had said that the Press Gallery would have emptied in an instant to flash the message, "Cousins strikes again". We have had a pile of those suggestions.
The right hon. Member for Wallasey, who has never been regarded as the most progressive of Left-wing Members of the House of Commons, made the point that one of the things that my right hon. Friend should do would be to take over the building industry. Just imagine what would have happened if that had been said by us on this side. Perhaps, however, the most intriguing suggestion of all came from my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Dr. Bray), who complained bitterly that my right hon. Friend was not throwing his weight about enough in Whitehall and Westminster. A number of specific points and a number of serious points were raised. One was made by the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke), who takes a detailed interest in these matters and made a specific point about reprocessing at Windscale. Let me make it quite clear that there is no conflict whatever in this matter between my right hon. Friend and Sir William Penney. The position is that the reprocessing plant at Windscale is not wholly engaged on civil work. It also deals with defence contracts, and it is only because of this, and for no other reason, that it was decided not to include it in the trading fund. I make this point to avoid any misunderstanding.
A number of other hon. Gentlemen, and the right hon. Gentleman, raised the point that perhaps we in the Ministry of Technology were engaged in taking decisions affecting industry, and taking them without enough knowledge and without understanding British industry, as they said. They went on to say that the Ministry of Technology was getting involved in policies which it did not have the expertise and understanding properly to appreciate. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Ely made the point that the taxpayer could not be sure that he was getting value for money because we needed the experience of those in industry.
Of course, we accept this. That is why my right hon. Friend set up the National Advisory Council at the Ministry of Technology, and nothing like this has existed before in this country. Who are the people on it? Lord Nelson of English Electric, Sir Arnold Hall, of Hawker Siddeley, Sir Leon Bagrit, of Elliott's, Mr. Frank Kearton, of Courtaulds, and Mr. Hugh Tett, of Esso.


Our country and this House owe those men a very real debt for all the time and effort they are giving us to help this country to become technologically advanced, and doing so regardless of any party beliefs which they may or may not have. I can only wish that we had the same sort of approach from hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite as that we get from British industry.
But this is the problem which faces us and it is a very serious problem, because it is the biggest issue which faces this country and it is, simply, the question of how we can put this country technologically among the most advanced nations in the world. Whatever social policies either party prepares, whatever discussions we have about social welfare, whatever we say in terms of raising people's standards of living we on both sides of the Committee accept that the performance which, for whatever reason, this country has produced over the last few years is totally inadequate to maintain an advanced standard of living.
There is no dispute between the two sides of the Committee on this. No single hon. Member opposite—perhaps there is at this time of night, but normally no single hon. Gentleman opposite—would stand up and argue that our economic performance, our technological performance, is sufficiently good to sustain the sort of standard of living which we need in this country. We all agree that something was wrong—I am not at the moment arguing whose fault it was—there was something wrong, and that something had to be changed and that something had to be done, and that is what this debate has been all about, whether or not the policies of this Government will tend towards making this country more competitive in the future than it has been in the past.
This is not just a question of computers; it is not just a question of machine tools. One hon. Gentleman opposite said, I think very truly, that we, particularly the laymen amongst us, get so fascinated by these extraordinary machines, these extraordinary pieces of equipment, and the things which they can do, that we forget that, in order to be technologically advanced, we have to have not only the equipment but a sympathetic and a completely changed attitude

and atmosphere in every section of the community. There are no sacred cows in the British economy on either side of the fence. The hon. Member laughs. It is not enough to laugh, because I come back to the point that these are problems which we recognise exist and have existed for a long time, and so far no previous Government have done anything about them. The hon. Member says "Rot". Well, hon. and right hon. Members opposite were not very successful if they tried.
What, then, is the biggest problem we face? One of the biggest problems is the use we make of our manpower and resources which we have in this country, how we can use them to the best advantage. We have to have more skilled workers in this country.
There must be the fullest utilisation of the people whom we have working in the country, because in the years to come our labour force will grow at a considerably slower rate than the dependent population. This means that with a relatively reduced labour force we have to ensure that we use labour—not just manual labour, but technologically qualified and graduate labour, in fact all sections of the community—to the best advantage, because if we do not we cannot use it to the full whether we have the equipment or not.
What have the Government been doing about that? First, there is the question of the Industrial Training Act. The hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Peter Griffiths) said that we ought to do something about management education, and that we ought to do something more in terms of re-educating and retraining technically qualified people whose skills might have become out of date over the years. This is what we are doing. I wish that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite would clear their minds of the strange prejudices which they have against us. Never in my life have I seen so many people opposed to righteousness. We as a Government are trying to meet these problems, and they criticise us without knowing what we are doing.
Under the Industrial Training Act, in the first year alone the industrial training boards will spend a sum not far short of £100 million. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are in favour of this, because they are in favour of retraining.

Mr. Marples: We passed the Act.

Mr. Marsh: I agree that the right hon. Gentleman passed the Act. Perhaps he will say why his right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) has tabled Prayers to annul the Orders that we have made to put the Act into effect. It makes one wonder what was the intention behind the Act. It was a sort of enabling Act, by which one could do a great deal, or do very little. We decided to do something about it. The Orders were published, and at the first possible opportunity the Shadow Minister of Labour, the right hon. Member for Grantham, tabled Prayers to annul the three Orders that were made. I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition for raising this point. If I had known that he was going to explain it, I would have told him that this Prayer was on the Order Paper.

Mr. John Page: rose—

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Marsh: I cannot give way because I have very little time in which to conclude my remarks. I can appreciate that hon. Gentlemen opposite would prefer this question to be dealt with by the hon. Member for Harrow, West rather than by the Leader of the Opposition, who has an unhappy knack of putting his feet in it. I do not know why hon. Gentlemen opposite are being so unruly when I am trying to make a series of factual comments about what we are doing.
Under the Industrial Training Act machinery has been set up and finance will be provided to ensure that demands for skilled labour at all levels is forecast. We are raising money to pay for the training which hon. Gentlemen opposite have been saying they want. As soon as we do this they try to stop us.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Marsh: I cannot give way. [Interruption.]

The Chairman: Order. If the hon. Member does not give way hon. Members must remain seated.

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Marsh: Having dealt with—[Interruption.] It is extraordinary how

many hon. Members opposite can—[Interruption.]

The Chairman: Order. We must get on with the debate.

Hon. Members: Why?

Mr. Marsh: Not only the question—[Interruption.] Not only the question—[Interruption.]

The Chairman: Order. If the Minister has no intention of giving way it does not help if someone else tries to interrupt.

Mr. Marsh: Not only are we dealing with training under the Industrial Training Act; it is also our intention to deal with the question of adult retraining. It is also interesting to note that two years ago—[Interruption.]

The Chairman: Order. I hope that hon. Members will allow the debate to end as it has gone on during the day, in a quite orderly fashion.

Mr. Marsh: On the question of adult retraining—[Interruption.]

Sir Knox Cunningham: On a point of order. I distinctly heard the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) say, "You stink like stoats". Is that a Parliamentary expression?

The Chairman: I often regret it when an hon. Member brings to the notice of the Chair words which have passed between hon. Members. Will he repeat what he alleges the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) to have said?

Sir Knox Cunningham: He said, "You stink like stoats". Is that in order as a Parliamentary expression?

The Chairman: It is certainly not in order. If the hon. Member said it I hope that he will withdraw it.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I had no idea of saying anything that was out of order—but there are things in the world that do stink like stoats. [Interruption.]

The Chairman: Order. I am not interested in the hon. Member's comments on nature in general. If his remark referred to an hon. Member it is offensive and I hope that he will withdraw it.

Mr. Silverman: I am obliged to you, Dr. King; I was simply making known my views on nature in general.

Mr. Marsh: In view of the fact that it was impossible for hon. Members to permit the speech in—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne has withdrawn his remark in his own way. He has withdrawn any implication that was made in his earlier remark.

Mr. Marsh: It is clearly impossible for hon. Members opposite to believe in democracy at all. Surely the Government are entitled to put a case. In view of the fact that it is impossible for me to do so, I can only ask my hon. and right hon. Friends to divide and to carry the Vote against this cowardly attack.

Question put, That a sum not exceeding £8,760,000 be granted for the said Service:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 273, Noes 297.

Division No. 257.]
AYES
[10.00 p.m.


Agnew, Commander Sir Peter
Currie, G. B. H.
Hiley, Joseph


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Dalkeith, Earl of
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Dance, James
Hirst, Geoffrey


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Davies, Dr. Wyndham (Perry Barr)
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin


Anstruther-Gray, Rt. Hn. Sir W.
Dean, Paul
Hopkins, Alan


Astor, John
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Hordern, Peter


Atkins, Humphrey
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hornby, Richard


Awdry, Daniel
Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Howard, Hn. G. R. (St. Ives)


Baker, W. H. K.
Doughty, Charles
Howe, Geoffrey (Bebington)


Balniel, Lord
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Hunt, John (Bromley)


Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Drayson, G. B.
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Barlow, Sir John
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Iremonger, T. L.


Batsford, Brian
Eden, Sir John
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tutton
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)


Bell, Ronald
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Johnson Smith, G. (East Grinstead)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Emery, Peter
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Errington, Sir Eric
Jopling, Michael


Biffen, John
Farr, John
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith


Biggs-Davison, John
Fell, Anthony
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Bingham, R. M.
Fisher, Nigel
Kerr, Sir Hamilton (Cambridge)


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles (Darwen)
Kershaw, Anthony


Black, Sir Cyril
Fletcher-Cooke, Sir John (S'pton)
Kilfedder, James A.


Blaker, Peter
Foster, Sir John
Kimball, Marcus


Box, Donald
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford &amp; Stone)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. J.
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Kirk, Peter


Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward
Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.
Kitson, Timothy


Braine, Bernard
Gammans, Lady
Lagden, Godfrey


Brewis, John
Gardner, Edward
Lambton, Viscount


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Gibson-Watt, David
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Giles, Rear-Admiral Morgan
Langford-Holt, Sir John


Brooke, Rt. Hn. Henry
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, Central)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Glover, Sir Douglas
Litchfield, Capt. John


Bryan, Paul
Glyn, Sir Richard
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'n C'd field)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Goodhart, Philip
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)


Burden, F. A.
Goodhew, Victor
Longbottom, Charles


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Gower, Raymond
Longden, Gilbert


Campbell, Gordon
Grant, Anthony
Loveys, Walter H.


Carlisle, Mark
Grant-Ferris, R.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Gresham Cooke, R.
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Cary, Sir Robert
Grieve, Percy
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Channon, H. P. G.
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain


Chataway, Christopher
Griffiths, Peter (Smethwick)
McMaster, Stanley


Chichester-Clark, R.
Gurden, Harold
McNair-Wilson, Patrick


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Maginnis, John E.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Maitland, Sir John


Cole, Norman
Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Cooke, Robert
Hamilton, M. (Salisbury)
Marten, Neil


Cooper, A. E.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Mathew, Robert


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Maude, Angus


Cordle, John
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Mawby, Ray


Corfield, F. V.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Costain, A. P.
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Courtney, Cdr. Anthony
Hastings, Stephen
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hawkins, Paul
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Crawley, Aldan
Hay, John
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Miscampbell, Norman


Crowder, F. P.
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Mitchell, David


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Hendry, Forbes
Monro, Hector


Curran, Charles
Higgins, Terence L.
More, Jasper




Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Murton, Oscar
Ridsdale, Julian
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Neave, Airey
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Roots, William
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Nugent, Rt. Hn. Sir Richard
Royle, Anthony
Vickers, Dame Joan


Onslow, Cranley
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Walder, David (High Peak)


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Scott-Hopkins, James
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Sharples, Richard
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Osborn, John (Hallam)
Shepherd, William
Wall, Patrick


Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Sinclair, Sir George
Walters, Dennis


Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chiswick)
Ward, Dame Irene


Page, R. Graham (Crosby)
Smyth, Rt. Hn. Brig. Sir John
Weatherill, Bernard


Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Soames, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Peel, John
Spearman, Sir Alexander
Whitelaw, William


Percival, Ian
Speir, Sir Rupert
Williams, Sir Rolf Dudley (Exeter)


Peyton, John
Stainton, Keith
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Pickthorn, Rt. Hn. Sir Kenneth
Stanley, Hn. Richard
Wise, A. R.


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Stodart, Anthony
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Pounder, Rafton
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Studholme, Sir Henry
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Talbot, John E.
Woodnutt, Mark


Prior, J. M. L.
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Wylie, N. R.


Pym, Francis
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Quennell, Miss J. M.
Teeling, Sir William
Younger, Hn. George


Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Temple, John M.



Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Redmayne, Rt. Hn. Sir Martin
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Conway)
Mr. Martin McLaren and




Mr. Ian MacArthur.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hannan, William


Albu, Austen
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Harper, Joseph


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)


Alldritt, Walter
de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey
Hart, Mrs. Judith


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Delargy, Hugh
Hattersley, Roy


Atkinson, Norman
Dell, Edmund
Hayman, F. H.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Dempsey, James
Hazell, Bert


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis


Barnett, Joel
Dodds, Norman
Heffer, Eric S.


Baxter, William
Doig, Peter
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur




Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret


Beaney, Alan
Donnelly, Desmond
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)


Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.
Driberg, Tom
Holman, Percy


Bence, Cyril
Duffy, Dr. A. E. P.
Hooson, H. E.


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Dunn, James A.
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Dunnett, Jack
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)


Bessell, Peter
Edelman, Maurice
Howarth, Robert L. (Bolton, E.)


Binns, John
Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
Howie, W.


Bishop, E. S.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Hoy, James


Blackburn, F.
English, Michael
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Ennals, David
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Boston, Terence
Ensor, David
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Hunter, Adam (Dunfermline)


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S. W.)
Evans, Ioan (Birmingham, Yardley)
Hunter, A. E. (Feltham)


Bowen, Roderic (Cardigan)
Fernyhough, E.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Boyden, James
Finch, Harold (Bedwellty)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Jackson, Colin


Bradley, Tom
Fletcher, Sir Eric (Islington, E.)
Janner, Sir Barnett


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Floud, Bernard
Jeger, George (Goole)


Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)
Foley, Maurice
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; Fbury)
Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)


Buchan, Norman (Renfrewshire, W.)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)


Buchanan, Richard
Ford, Ben
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Galpern, Sir Myer
Jones, Dan (Burnley)


Carmichael, Neil
Garrett, W. E.
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
George, Lady Megan Lloyd
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Chapman, Donald
Ginsburg, David
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Coleman, Donald
Gourlay, Harry
Kelley, Richard


Conlan, Bernard
Gregory, Arnold
Kenyon, Clifford


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Grey, Charles
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)


Cousins, Rt. Hn. Frank
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Griffiths, Rt. Hn. James (Llanelly)
Lawson, George


Crawshaw, Richard
Griffiths, Will (M'chester, Exchange)
Leadbitter, Ted


Cronin, John
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Ledger, Ron


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. R. H. S.
Hale, Leslie
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)


Dalyell, Tam
Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Lewis, Arthur (West Ham, N.)


Darling, George
Hamling, William (Woolwich, W.)
Lipton, Marcus




Loughlin, Charles
Padley, Walter
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Lubbock, Eric
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Paget, R. T.
Stonehouse, John


McBride, Neil
Palmer, Arthur
Stones, William


McCann, J.
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)


MacColl, James
Pargiter, G. A.
Stross, Sir Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


MacDermot, Niall
Park, Trevor (Derbyshire, S. E.)
Swain, Thomas


McGuire, Michael
Parker, John
Swingler, Stephen


McInnes, James
Parkin, B. T.
Symonds, J. B.


McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Pavitt, Laurence
Taverne, Dick


Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Thomas, George (Cardiff, W.)


Mackie, George Y. (C'ness &amp; S'land)
Pentland, Norman
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Mackie, John (Enfield, E.)
Perry, Ernest G.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


MacMillan, Malcolm
Prentice, R. E.
Thornton, Ernest


Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Thorpe, Jeremy


Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Probert, Arthur
Tinn, James


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Tomney, Frank


Mallalieu, J. F. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Randall, Harry
Tuck, Raphael


Manuel, Archie
Rankin, John
Urwin, T. W.


Mapp, Charles
Redhead, Edward
Varley, Eric G.


Marsh, Richard
Rees, Merlyn
Wainwright, Edwin


Mason, Roy
Reynolds, G. W.
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Maxwell, Robert
Rhodes, Geoffrey
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Mayhew, Christopher
Richard, Ivor
Wallace, George


Mellish, Robert
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Warbey, William


Mendelson, J. J.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Watkins, Tudor


Mikardo, Ian
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Weitzman, David


Millan, Bruce
Robinson, Rt. Hn. K. (St. Pancras, N.)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Miller, Dr. M. S.
Rodgers, William (Stockton)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Rose, Paul B.
Whitlock, William


Molley, William
Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Wigg, Rt. Hn. George


Monslow, Walter
Rowland, Christopher
Wilkins, W. A.


Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Sheldon, Robert
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Morris, John (Aberavon)
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Sheffield Pk)
Shore, Peter (Stepney)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Murray, Albert
Short, Rt. Hn. E. (N'c'tle-on-Tyne, C.)
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Neal, Harold
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Newens, Stan
Silkin, John (Deptford)
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Silkin, S. C. (Camberwell, Dulwich)
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Derby, S.)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Norwood, Christopher
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Oakes, Gordon
Skeffington, Arthur
Woof, Robert


Ogden, Eric
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Wyatt, Woodrow


O'Malley, Brian
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Oram, Albert E. (E. Ham, S.)
Small, William
Zilliacus, K.


Orbach, Maurice
Snow, Julian



Orme, Stanley
Soskice, Rt. Hn. Sir Frank
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Oswald, Thomas
Spriggs, Leslie
Mr. Sydney Irving and


Owen, Will
Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Mr. George Rogers.

Original Question again proposed.

Mr. Cyril Bence: rose—

It being after Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Judges' Remuneration Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[The Attorney-General.]

Orders of the Day — JUDGES' REMUNERATION BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

10.15 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Elwyn Jones): rose—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order. May I ask, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether your attention has been drawn to the Amendment standing in my name? May I ask whether it is your intention to call it?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Samuel Storey): That is matter for Mr. Speaker and will be settled when we come to it.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
As the House knows, the salaries of the higher judiciary are fixed by Statute. The last time they were increased was in 1954. Before that the High Court judges in England and Wales had not had an increase in salary for 120 years. So far as I know, the higher judiciary are the only body of servants of the State, or, indeed, almost any person in receipt of remuneration, who have had no increase in salary for 11 years. I need hardly remind the House that since the last increase in 1954 the cost of living, according to the Index of Retail Prices, has increased by 42 per cent. The judges' salaries, alone of all salaries, have stayed put.
When the then Prime Minister, the late Sir Winston Churchill, introduced the Bill in 1954 he said that the new salaries fixed by the Bill would remain unaltered for a fairly long period, perhaps a generation. Unhappily, the erosion of the value of money has been more rapid than was foreseen in 1954 and 12 years—as the House will see from the Bill, the new salaries that are proposed will not take effect until 1st April, 1966—has proved to be too long a period for salaries to remain constant in modern conditions. Accordingly, as long ago as March, 1964, the previous Administration gave an express undertaking that legislation would be introduced in this Session to provide for increases in remuneration of the higher judiciary.
The most important Clause in the Bill is Clause 1. Clause 1(1), taken together with the First Schedule, increases the salary of the senior judiciary by 25 per cent. over that which was thought to be appropriate in 1954. The one exception is the salary of the President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division. In his case the increase is not designed simply to restore his salary to something like what was thought appropriate formerly, but to give belated recognition to the very heavy duties which have fallen upon him.
The House may think that his post has been overdue for upgrading for a long time. Long since gone are the days when the President, assisted until quite recently by two other judges, was well able to despatch all the work of that Division. Today, there are, apart from him, 13 judges in his Division, and much additional work is done by county court judges and special commissioners. The President also has heavy administrative responsibilities, including the running of the Principal Probate Registry, the Admiralty Registry, and 26 district probate registries. In the circumstances, the House may readily agree that the salary of the President should be the same as that of the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary and the Master of the Rolls.
I invite the House to look at the list of salaries proposed in the First Schedule for the other judges. Leaving aside the Lord Chancellor, who is dealt with in Clause 2, the Lord Chief Justice comes, quite rightly, in view of his heavy responsibilities in connection with his presidency of the Queen's Bench Division and with assizes and many other duties which fall upon him, at the top of the list with a salary of £12,500 a year, as compared with his present salary of £10,000 a year. Next comes the Master of the Rolls and the nine Lords of Appeal in Ordinary who are now, as I have said, joined by the President. They will all, under the Bill, have a salary of £11,250 a year.
Finally, there are the largest group of the higher judiciary, namely, the Lord Justices of Appeal and the puisne judges of the High Court who have traditionally received the same remuneration, and that principle of equality remains in the Bill. They will receive under the Bill £10,000


a year. Having said that they will get £10,000 a year, the reality is that a married judge with no dependent children will get little more than a half of that amount after he has paid Income Tax and Surtax. Two-thirds of the additional £2,000 which is to be paid to the High Court judges of England and Wales will go back to the Exchequer as tax. Accordingly, the net benefit to the judges will be £779.
The suggestion was mooted, when this problem was raised a year ago, that this should be met by a tax-free payment of £1,000 a year. Not surprisingly, the Treasury of that day thought that to be a bad tax principle, but if that principle had been embodied in this Bill the judges would have been better off with £1,000 tax-free than they are with £2,000 subject to taxation.

Sir Rolf Dudley Williams: So would we all.

The Attorney-General: Yes, so would we all, I think. This is why the Government have thought it proper to apply the principle of equal treatment by the tax authorities in this Bill.
The salaries of the senior judges in Scotland and Northern Ireland are also proportionately raised. I apprehend that some hon. Members may take the view that an increase of 25 per cent. in the salary of the High Court judges is too generous. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I notice the cries of poverty coming from the other side of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "And that."] Yes, and from this side, too. It may be said that the proposed increase is out of line with the Government's incomes policy in other spheres. It is accordingly right that I should deal with that immediately, because I submit that that fear is entirely without foundation.
The proposed addition of 25 per cent. to the present salary represents a compound annual rate of increase of 1·9 per cent. compared with the norm of 3½ per cent. increase in wages and salaries. The comparison, therefore, taking the period as a whole, is that of 1·9 per cent. with the norm of 3½ per cent.
Is it right that the House should take cognisance of what has happened in other spheres in regard to wages and salaries.

In the same period since 1954 wage rates have gone up 59 per cent. and salaries 65 per cent. If the present judge's salary of £8,000 was increased at a rate commensurate with some of the changes to which I have referred, this would be the kind of result: the £8,000 would be raised to £11,328 to allow for the increase in the cost of living. It would be £13,200 if it kept pace with the average salary increases in the country. Those are the harsh economic facts and the background of this matter.
If the problem were looked at entirely afresh, it would not be easy for this House or for anyone to decide objectively what our community should pay for having an immensely able and independent bench of High Court judges. In 1832, they were thought to be worth £5,000 a year. That would be worth about £40,000 a year today. But, whatever figure is arrived at, I think that it is essential for their salaries to be settled at a figure which will not down-grade their status in the community. Clearly, they should remain measurably ahead of the lower judiciary, who have received three increases in salary since 1954, as have higher civil servants.
The position now is that the higher judiciary, apart from Members of Parliament and Ministers of the Crown, are alone among people paid out of public funds in not having a regular review of their salaries. Civil servants come under the Central Pay Agreement and they receive regular increases based on the principle of fair comparison. The higher Civil Service, to which the lower judiciary has in recent years been linked, has a somewhat similar procedure with less frequent but periodic increases. The judiciary, therefore, are in an exceptional position and subject to this exceptional treatment.
It is right that I should make this point early in the debate. The judges are recruited from the Bar, and earnings at the Bar, I am glad to say, have considerably increased in recent years. Had any one of the gifted people who are now High Court judges remained at the Bar, he would be in receipt of a considerably higher income than he has been drawing as a High Court judge, allowing for my other extras which it may be suggested the judges enjoy.

Sir Rolf Dudley Williams: If they had carried on at the Bar, they would not have the benefit of a tax-free emolument on retirement.

The Attorney-General: I shall come to the question of pensions in a moment. That is in accordance with the arrangements made for the Civil Service as a whole, as the hon. Gentleman, no doubt, fully appreciates.

Mr. Leo Abse: My right hon. and learned Friend has mentioned other benefits. So that the House may have all the facts before it, will he explain exactly what are the extra emoluments which judges receive when they go on circuit and what they are for? Second, will he say—this was raised in the debate when judges' salaries were last discussed—what are the present costs of their robes, wigs and paraphernalia?

The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend has invited me to make my speech in the way he wishes, but I am sorry to have to tell him that I propose to continue in the way I had intended. I can tell him at once that, of course, allowances are paid to judges who go on assize. Those allowances were fixed in 1954, and there has been no increment since.
If it is desired to obtain the detail of these matters, my hon. Friend can refer to HANSARD tomorrow morning where he will find the information fully set out in a Written Answer to my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis), who was good enough to put down a Question on the subject today. The details are fully set out there and there is no mystery about them. It is a provision to enable judges on assize to return the hospitality they receive, on a suitably moderate basis, and it is adequate for that purpose and for no more.
The Lord Chancellor now has reason to believe that the existing judicial salaries are insufficient to make certain of attracting the best of the Bar to the Bench. That is the position we have arrived at. Yet I am sure that no one in this House will deny the importance of maintaining the high standards of the higher judiciary.
The work of the High Court judge has not become less arduous through the

years. Queen's Bench judges now are frequently out of London and away from their homes and families for as much as six months a year. A considerable number of judges perform important work in vacations by sitting at quarter sessions, no doubt to the great advantage of the administration of justice. Vacations have been cut down by the sittings that have been arranged in September to clear the gaols of those committed for trial too late to be dealt with at the previous assizes.
Whenever any great problems of importance in the State call for investigation, it is to the High Court judges that we rush as soon as possible. Indeed, the pressure for their services has placed considerable burdens upon the administration of justice. They have performed their duties on various committees and there are no fewer than 20 High Court judges at present sitting on committees dealing with a wide range of subjects from law reform to security.
Moreover, those who sit in the Court of Criminal Appeal have to get through a great deal of paper work when the day's work in court is done. As those who have experience of these matters know, a good deal of the spare time of all the judges in the evenings and at weekends is devoted to the consideration and the writing of reserved judgments.
Subsection (1) of Clause 1 has the effect of increasing the pension payable to high judicial officers on retirement. Under the Judicial Pensions Act, 1959, the pension payable during the first five years of service is a quarter of the last annual salary. This is increased by one-fortieth of the salary for each further year of service up to a maximum of one-half the last annual salary, which is earned after 15 years on the Bench.
Although subsection (1) has, naturally, attracted most attention, the remaining subsections of Clause 1 are also of some importance. These enable the remuneration of High Court judges to be increased in future, should this prove to be just and proper, by Order in Council, provided that a draft of the Order has been previously approved by affirmative Resolution of both Houses.
Since the passing of the Judicial Offices (Salaries and Pensions) Act, 1957, a similar procedure has been applied to


the salaries of the lower judiciary. As I have said, in modern conditions no salaries have remained constant for very many years. They have had to be adjusted from time to time and those few people whose salaries have been fixed by Act of Parliament have necessarily been placed in an invidious position. Indeed, virtually the only other salaries in the public sector which are still fixed by Statute are those of Ministers of the Crown and Members of Parliament—and hon. Members, too, have suffered because of the existence of this requirement of change by Act of Parliament.
Bills to deal with the salaries of Members, of Ministers and of High Court judges are unpopular—of that there is no doubt—and Governments are loath to find time for them in a congested legislative programme. The result of all this is that when, ultimately, a Bill is brought forward to bring the remuneration of these high officers of State into line with developments in the community, the Measure is usually very late and when it comes it gives a false impression that a wholly disproportionate increase is being granted.
The procedure which is now proposed in the Bill—and I emphasise that it still requires parliamentary approval—is the affirmative Resolution procedure which, at least, takes less time than the passage of a Bill of the kind which we are now discussing, so that there is every likelihood that in so far as a judicial salary hereafter needs adjustment it will be adjustable more nearly in the same way as the remuneration of all other salary earners.
I can deal with the remaining Clauses briefly. Clause 2 deals with the salary and pension of the Lord Chancellor. The House will remember that the Lawrence Committee on the Remuneration of Ministers and Members of Parliament, whose recommendations so far as they related to Members of Parliament were adopted and accepted by the House, recommended that the Lord Chancellor's salary should be £17,000 a year. However, since the Government decided that for other Ministers only half the increase recommended by the Lawrence Committee should be accepted—and that decision was effected in the Ministerial Salaries and Members' Pensions Act earlier this year—it has seemed to the Government

to be right that the Lord Chancellor's remuneration should also be increased by only half the amount recommended. This is the effect of Clause 2.
My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor did not want his own salary to be increased before that of his judicial brethren and the increase in his salary, therefore, will not take place until a year later than that of his ministerial colleagues, that is to say, until April, next year.
The Lord Chancellor has been described as a sort of universal joint in the machinery of government. He links the three interlocking powers in our constitution. As a Cabinet Minister, he is a member of the Executive. As Speaker of the House of Lords, he is a legislator. Finally, not only is he a judge, but he is the very head of the judiciary. The House may like to know that, despite these vast responsibilities, the salary now proposed for him, of £14,500, is only £500 higher than that which was granted to his predecessor by Parliament 133 years ago, in 1832.
Clause 2(2) increases the Lord Chancellor's pension from £5,000 a year to £6,250. In view of certain comments which have been made about this part of the Bill, perhaps I ought to make it clear that it is not open to a Lord Chancellor on retirement to return to practise at the Bar. A busy Queen's Counsel who accepts the Great Seal has no security of tenure and he knows that he cannot enjoy the salary attached to the post for more than a short and uncertain time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] That, of course, does not apply to the present Lord Chancellor. But it is clearly right that in all the circumstances the Lord Chancellor should be able to look forward to a suitable pension in view of his sacrifice of his professional position if, as in the case of the present Lord Chancellor, he goes straight from the Bar to the Woolsack.

Mr. J. T. Price: I think that to make a perfectly balanced statement it should be said that there are precedents for previous Lord Chancellors going to the City of London and earning high professional fees in another capacity, associated with their judicial function.

The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend is right, but perhaps in fairness to the Lord Chancellor who did this I should point out that he does not draw his pension as Lord Chancellor.

Mr. R. T. Paget: Would my right hon. and learned Friend tell us whether Lord Birkenhead drew his pension?

The Attorney-General: I did not ask him. I do not know. It may well be that, as in so many other things, Lord Birkenhead was an exception. Certainly, the only other instance known to me of an ex-Lord Chancellor going to business was Lord Buckmaster, who, for a short time, undertook some voluntary inquiry in the City of London. He was a remarkable man. He did so and forwent his pension. The other is Lord Kilmuir, and as I have said, he does not draw his pension as an ex-Lord Chancellor.

Mr. Peter Kirk: Am I right in thinking that this increase in pension applies only to the present Lord Chancellor and his successors, and not his predecessors?

The Attorney-General: It applies to Lord Chancellors who resign after 1st April, 1966. These pension increases have no retrospective effect, and, therefore, the judges or Lord Chancellors who have retired, and are now drawing pensions will not benefit from the Bill.

Mr. Julian Snow: If a Lord Chancellor who goes to the City and forgoes his pension is awarded a pension by the company for which he has been working, is he then able to draw the pension which he has temporarily forgone?

The Attorney-General: I should like notice of that question. I would like to think about it. I will not give a spot answer, but we will look into it during the Committee stage. My present feeling is that it is doubtful, but I would be very glad to look at it and deal with it again.
The point which needs to be made is that Lord Chancellors who have retired and draw a pension are expected to sit judicially with the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, with the House of Lords, sitting in a judicial capacity. Although it

is right that it has been mentioned that some of them have not followed that ancient tradition, greatly respected in the administration of justice, and have perhaps rather regrettably departed from it, it is right that we should emphasise that most Lord Chancellors have faithfully adhered to the tradition. When they have retired from the Woolsack, they do the ordinary work of the House of Lords, sitting judicially.
That is being done by ex-Lord Chancellors who are now Members of another place. The result is that those who do that—and normally that has been the procedure—find themselves enjoying merely the amount of their pension, while alongside them are Lords of Appeal in Ordinary who are, generally speaking, receiving twice as much by way of emolument from the State. That is the position, and in practice, heavy demands have been made upon the time of ex-Lord Chancellors for the performance of this most critical judicial work, normally sitting in the Supreme Court of Appeal of our country, and as members of the Judicial Committee of the Commonwealth.

Mr. Paget: If my right hon. and learned Friend says that the pension is conditional on subsequent service, may we take it that that will later be included in the Bill?

The Attorney-General: I did not say that it was conditional upon subsequent service. I said that it had at any rate become a convention. One doubts whether any contemporary retiring Lord Chancellor would behave in any other way.

Mr. Paget: May we have it in the Bill?

The Attorney-General: If my hon. and learned Friend wants to return to the matter in Committee, we will look at it.
Clause 3 is the only part of the Bill which is designed to come into force on Royal Assent. The rest of the Bill comes into force in April next year. The effect of Clause 3 is to increase by seven the number of High Court judges who may be appointed in England and Wales. The next maximum will, therefore, be 63.
At this hour I do not propose to detain the House for very long over the Clause. No doubt we shall have an opportunity of discussing the matter in detail in Committee. But, broadly speaking, there are four main reasons for increasing the present statutory maximum by seven. The first is the continuing increase in criminal business arising unhappily from the continuing increase in crime which has been the feature of life in our own community, as indeed in most of the world, since the war. Whereas only 1,467 "judge-days" were required for the despatch of criminal business at assizes in 1961, that figure had risen to 2,148 in 1964. In those three years there was that remarkable increase. Moreover, the work of the Court of Criminal Appeal has also increased very sharply. In 1949, for instance, it sat for 65 days a year. Last year, there were 195 sittings of the Court of Criminal Appeal—three times as many.
The second reason for an increase is the increase in divorce work, which has been very sharp in recent years. In 1960, it might have appeared that the total number of divorce petitions had levelled out at between 26,000 and 30,000 a year, but for some reason—and perhaps one of these days the sociologists will explain it—the number began to increase in 1961—in 1964 the total number of proceedings started in the Divorce Division was 41,780. The result has been that the employment of Special Commissioners has still been necessary, and additional judges are needed for the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division, even if the Commissioners are not entirely to be replaced—and the House will recollect that the system of employing Special Commissioners as substitutes for judges for the trial of defended divorce has been greatly criticised in post-war years.
The third reason for an increase is the continued pressure of work in the Chancery Division. As hon. Members are probably aware, there has been a considerable increase there, in particular in wardship proceedings, which have come into the limelight recently, and, generally speaking, they require the personal attention of a judge. Delays are building up in the Chancery Division, and a further appointment there is now called for.
The fourth reason—and this is an urgent one—is that the three judges whose

appointment was authorised by the Resale Prices Act last year are already fully occupied in the Queen's Bench and Divorce Divisions, and this at a time when the business arising from the Resale Prices Act is just beginning to come before the Restrictive Practices Court and is likely to increase the work of that court very considerably.
Everyone regrets the necessity for a further increase in the number of High Court judges. I must emphasise that the appointments which are authorised by the Bill will not—indeed, cannot—be made unless there is clear need for them in each case and unless not only my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, but also the Treasury, are satisfied as to the necessity of a new appointment.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: How does the Attorney-General expect the numbers to be broken down between the various Divisions of the High Court?

The Attorney-General: I should like notice of that question. It will depend upon the need.
As I have said, it is contemplated that there shall be an early appointment to the Chancery Division and an appointment to the Divorce Division and another to the Queen's Bench Division; but I will look into the matter. If there is already an intention to make immediate increases, I will certainly let the House know. That further appointments will be necessary is undoubted. As I say, however, they will not be made unless both my noble Friend and the Treasury are satisfied of the absolute necessity for a new appointment.
In spite of the considerable increase in the number of High Court judges, it is, I think, generally accepted, certainly at the Bar, that there has been no fall in the standard and qualities of those who have been appointed. I can think of no contemporary judge who would come within the category of a former judge of whom it was said that to appear in the Court of Appeal with a judgment of his in one's favour was like going to sea on a Friday. It was not necessarily fatal, but it was an experience that would have been better avoided. The contemporary judges, as I have ventured to say, have maintained the very high quality indeed of the High Court bench.
In regard to the number of judicial appointments to the High Court, in England and Wales there are fewer High Court judges per million of the population than in Scotland and considerably fewer than in the most nearly comparable judicial systems in Australia, Canada and New Zealand. [An HON. MEMBER: "Is there more crime there?"] It may be that we are more law-abiding—I do not know: but I doubt whether our Commonwealth friends would be flattered by that intervention. At least, the increase in crime in our own country does not in any case call for complacency on our part in the face of the problem.
The remaining provisions of the Bill are of less importance than those to which I have referred, and at this stage I need trouble the House only with Clause 4. [Laughter.] A reference to Clause 4 is limited entirely to the terms of the Bill. Clause 4 makes the necessary financial provisions consequential upon the increase in the amounts of salaries and pensions and in the number of High Court judges which will be brought about by the first three Clauses of the Bill.
Subsection (1) of Clause 4 continues to charge all salaries and pensions of the higher judiciary upon the Consolidated Fund, with the exception of that part of the Lord Chancellor's remuneration which is attributable to his being Speaker of another place. Subsection (2) extends to the whole of the higher judiciary the long-standing rule which at present applies only to the Supreme Court judges of England, Wales and Northern Ireland under which their salaries are abated by the amount of any pension they receive in respect of public offices previously held by them.
This rule has never previously applied as I understand it, to the Scottish judiciary or to the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary. The only likely practical effect of this provision in present circumstances will be that any Member of this House who has served here for 10 or more years and is appointed in future to high judicial office in the United Kingdom will be entitled to draw his Member's pension, but his judicial salary will be reduced by the amount of that pension.
May I add this, in conclusion of my presentation of the Bill? A vigilant, strong and fearless Bench is one of the bulwarks of liberty in this country, but the independence and high quality of the judiciary was not achieved without a struggle and it is well known that judicial independence and judicial integrity are not enjoyed by all countries today. It would be a disaster if the quality of the Bench were to be impaired, and it is as well for Parliament and the country to remind itself from time to time of the great value of the benefits which it enjoys through the possession of the kind of judiciary we have, and it should take care to see that the conditions in which the judiciary discharges its high functions are appropriate.

Mr. Speaker: I will say, it being a convenient moment, that the three-month Amendment—to postpone Second Reading for three months—in the name of the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis), is not selected, but he may have the comfort that that in no way narrows what he may say on the Question.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I thank you very much for that information, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate the fact that I must not in any way question your Ruling, but may I just say that to my knowledge, in 21 years now in the House, no such Amendment to such a Government Motion has not been called? May I ask you whether or not this is because of the Measure itself? Or is there some other reason for it?

Mr. Speaker: Not without notice could I be statistical, but I think that I am right in saying that I have a personal recollection of refraining myself from selecting them. It is a matter of judgment in the circumstances, in which I do my best.

10.58 p.m.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The Attorney-General has made a very careful exposition of the Bill. I was amazed at his fortitude or foolhardiness in not declaring an interest—no doubt it was because of the absence of his hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton)—because I am quite certain that one day the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be a most distinguished


ornament of the Bench. I declare no interest at all—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]—because although I am said to be, and indeed am, a member of the Bar, during the last 26 years, owing to the exigencies of war and politics, I have practised for only six years; and I am quite certain that no one would ever think of making me a judge. Therefore, I have no interest to declare.
As for the timing of the Bill, I think its sudden introduction is a little odd, at a time so near the end of our summer sittings, at a time when Government spokesmen, and, in particular, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, are decrying increases in personal incomes. However, the timing of the Measure is a Government responsibility, and I think we must remember that it does not come into force till April, 1966.

The Attorney-General: In what he has just said is the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggesting that he does not think that an undertaking was given by his Administration in March last year about this, and that it was accordingly appropriate that the Bill should be introduced in this Session?

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I did not wish to introduce this controversial note. Of course, we said that within this Session a Measure would be introduced, but we had not realised what an appalling mess would be made of the economy in the meantime. But I did not want to get involved in this argument. I shall willingly discuss it at greater length if need be, but the timing of the Bill is a matter for the Government.

Mr. Michael Foot: rose—

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I shall not give way. The Attorney-General was listened to almost in silence for nearly 45 minutes and I think, therefore, that I am entitled to put my constructive and moderate comments on the Bill in reasonable silence.
I think that the power given in Clause 1 to alter salaries in future by Order, subject to the affirmative Resolution procedure, is sensible. People talk a great deal about modernising the procedures of Parliament, and it is rather a nonsense that we should still have the whole paraphernalia

of a Bill to alter these salaries. It is sensible to streamline the procedure and to make alterations in future by means of a very much simpler procedure.
Clause 3 provides for an increase in the number of judges. It is true, of course, that we are all the time putting increasing burdens on the judiciary. I think that three new judges were created because of the burden put on the judiciary by the passing of the Resale Prices Act, but it is very interesting to discover what happened to those three judges. I do not know whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman, if he has time to listen to what I am saying, will concede that what happened to them can be described as larceny as a bailee, or fraudulent conversion, or embezzlement, but they have been transferred from any duties connected with the Resale Prices Act, and have been dealing with the ordinary work of Her Majesty's judges.
I do not complain about that, but I think that we shall return to this in Committee, so that we can have the case for the increase in numbers more fully made out. I do not think that my right hon. and hon. Friends are convinced that the case has been made out for this increase in the numbers, but we can discuss this later.
The main point with which we must deal as a Second Reading point is the amount of the salaries. It is very important that the case should be clearly made so that ordinary people can understand it. The facts as I see then are that the last increase was in 1954. There had been no increase before that since the days of King William IV, when it was fixed at £5,000, but I understand that there was no Income Tax then.
On a percentage rate, these proposals are not out of line with what we have done about our own salaries, nor are they out of line with what we have done with other scales of remuneration. I have here the latest figures paid to Permanent Secretaries. Many of them receive more than £8,000 a year. The Treasury Solicitor is paid £8,285, and I do not think it can be said that these new scales are out of line with these other scales which the House has accepted.
Nor do I think—and this is a very practical point—that it can be said that the new scales are out of proportion to the earnings of a member of the Bar in busy


practice. It is true that the judicial pension is a great advantage, but practising barristers can now make arrangements for pensions, and in view of that I think that it must be said that this increase is not out of line with the earnings of a member of the Bar.
The judiciary must attract the very best, and I would not have thought that that would be disputed by any Member of the House. We must show the world that we have a judiciary of the highest quality, and it must, therefore, attract our very best people.
The financial consequences of appointment to the Bench must not be such as to deter acceptance. That is a simple and obvious point which most people will understand. The right hon. and learned Member referred to the general view that the life of a judge is a very comfortable and sheltered one. That is not true. The Attorney-General did not endorse that view; he referred to it in order to refute it. The duties of a judge on circuit are onerous, and the number of judges now required to clear the lists often over-burdens the available accommodation—and their hours may be extremely long. A wide range of other duties is put upon Her Majesty's judges.
But the main point—the common jury point; the Second Reading point—is the question whether we are prepared to say that the salaries of judges should be fixed at a rate which will attract to the job the very best. Applying that test, the proper remuneration of judges is in the national interest, and although the Government must take responsibility for the timing of this Measure I could not ask my hon. and right hon. Friends to vote against it.

11.6 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I rise to oppose the Bill. If I speak at some length I want to explain to my hon. Friends that, strange as it may seem to them, I am not one who frequently takes part in debates in the House. This is the first time that I have spoken for eight months, and I have spoken in debates on only eight occasions in the 21 years that I have spent in the House. But on this matter I feel deeply. I am sorry that I am in conflict with both my right hon. and learned Friend and the Government—and particularly with my right hon. and learned Friend,

because he is a great personal friend of mine, and has been for 21 years. He represents the constituency adjoining mine, West Ham, South, and he knows that what I shall say about my constituents applies equally to his.
When I begin to quote, to explain to the House the feelings of my constituents, I want my right hon. and learned Friend to take it from me that I have strong reason to believe that they are also the feelings of his constituents.

The Attorney-General: Perhaps my hon. Friend will take it from me that I shall ascertain the temper of my constituents myself.

Mr. Lewis: I know my right hon. and learned Friend, and before the Bill goes through I have no doubt that he will find out something about it. As a matter of fact, I think that he has already had one letter.

The Attorney-General: Yes—from my hon. Friend's constituency.

Mr. Lewis: It is better if I get on with my major objections to the Bill. I never attempted to intervene in the Attorney-General's speech, although I might have been able to assist him in answering some of the questions put by my hon. Friends in their interjections, to which my right hon. and learned Friend replied by suggesting that they look at tomorrow's HANSARD for the information they required. Later, I shall give my right hon. and learned Friend the information which I have, and which will answer the points made in interjections.
I am sorry to be at variance both with my right hon. and learned Friend and with the Government about the Bill. I wanted to move the rejection of the Bill, but Mr. Speaker has not called my Amendment. I intend to call for a Division and to vote myself, and if any of my hon. Friends, or hon. Members opposite, want to join me I shall be pleased to have them. If they do not, I am big enough to stand on my own two feet.
First, I cannot for the life of me see that this was something of major and urgent importance, which had to come in the first eight months of this Government. I believe that we have quite a big legislative programme; whether or not hon. Members opposite agree does


not matter at the moment There is and was a large legislative programme based on the policy of this Government, but no mention was made of increases in judges' remuneration. No reference was made by any leader of the Labour Party—[Interruption.] When I start criticising, I wish that hon. Members would not interject, because this applies to both sides of the House and to all three parties—

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: rose—

Mr. Lewis: No. I will not give way. There is plenty of time. The hon. and learned Member can make his speech. This is a lawyer's heyday. I do not happen to be a lawyer—

Mr. Hooson: rose—

Mr. Lewis: There was nothing in the legislative programmes of the political parties on this subject and, to the best of my knowledge, none of the leaders of the Labour Party made any reference to it. None of the Liberals did, and certainly not the Tory Party.
Therefore, through the campaign, if this was such a vital issue, and it was so urgent, why did not someone think of telling the electorate about it—[Interruption.] The hon. Member is quite wrong, because during the election and before it, it was publicly declared in this House and outside that the Lawrence Committee was sitting. It was appointed by this House. It was discussed by all the political parties and in the Press and the Committee made its report.
The hon. and learned Gentleman knew that there was no report on this subject, there was no committee, there was no legislation, there was no recommendation from the House during the whole period that I have been here about judges' salaries.
I will go further than that. The Attorney-General said that there was a agreement between the two sides in March of last year. That was the first that I had heard about it. I knew nothing about it—[AN HON. MEMBER: "They did not tell you."] I do not think that hon. Gentlemen opposite know. Any criticism which I make of my Front Bench is equally applicable to hon. Members opposite, because they were parties to this—

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Mr. Selwyn Lloyd indicated dissent.

Mr. Lewis: The right hon. and learned Gentleman shakes his head—

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: There was no agreement. There was a statement by the Lord Chancellor of the day to the effect that, next Session, steps would be taken to improve the remuneration of the judge. It was a statement, not an agreement.

Mr. Lewis: I am sorry, but the two right hon. and learned Gentlemen must settle it between them. The Attorney-General says that there was an understanding, an agreement, the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) says that there was not. Is it agreed that there was some understanding?

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Mr. Selwyn Lloyd indicated dissent.

Mr. Lewis: No understanding?

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: It was a statement in another place by the Lord Chancellor of the day.

Mr. Lewis: The facts are, then, that neither of the parties was committed to this. There was no committee and no investigation and no action was taken on this matter by the House.
As we know, hon. Members on this side of the House are proud of the fact that they have association with the trade unions and the Co-operative Party and they declare that interest quite openly. They are proud to do so. Looking through the journals of the unions, I have found no trade union, no Labour Party, no Co-operative Party which, either locally, at district or branch level, or at its annual conference, has passed any resolution demanding urgent attention to increase the judges' salaries.
I may be wrong, but the only reference which I can find to the matter was by a Mr. Jones, of the Transport and General Workers' Union—I think that he is the assistant general secretary—who was violently against it. He said at his annual conference that, as far as he was concerned—I do not know whether he was speaking for his union—he would have no truck with this Bill.
If there was something urgent about the Bill, even if they did not see fit to


consult us at any time between last March and now, they might have had the decency to seek an opportunity of discussing it with the Trades Union Congress General Council or with the Co-operative movement. But they did not do it.
As far as I know, having looked through Tory Party reports—I do not get verbatim reports of the Tory Party conference and I do not know what happens in their mothers' or women's guilds, or whatever they may call them—no Tory Party organisation has pressed for legislation to increase the poor judges' salaries during the first eight months of the Labour Government.
I must not leave the Liberals out. I do not think that even they have. Certainly, I do not remember reading or hearing that they have.

Mr. Ian Percival: As I understand, what the hon. Gentleman is saying is that we ought not to be doing this in a busy Session because none of the party leaders has said that it would be done and there has not been a public outcry that it should be done. If there is anything in the point, perhaps he will tell the House how he explains the fact that so much time has been spent in this busy Parliament on the abolition of capital punishment, of which no mention was made during the election and about which there was no public outcry?

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I am sure that you were listening to what I said. The hon. and learned Member obviously was not. I did not say anything of the sort. That is what he said, and, if he wants to say it, he should do so in his own time and leave me to get on with my speech.
I was going on to refer to the lack of pressure not only outside the House, but inside. I have no interest to declare. I am one of the few Members present here this evening who have no connection with the law. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said, there are lawyers here. Of course, it is true. I am told there are about 100 hon. and learned Members who have some connection with the law. Some are Queen's Counsel, some are barristers-at-law and some are solicitors.

[An hon. Member: "There are more than that".] Well, I do not want to argue over a hundred or two either way. I am advised that there are some, like the hon. and learned Gentleman, who are well known by repute, but who do not practise. But I will not argue about a hundred either way. Let us call it 100.
I have been going through the OFFICIAL REPORT. We have a wonderful Reference Library, whose staff have been helping me. I asked them if they could find me one Question from a member of the legal fraternity which has asked for the matter of judges' salaries to be considered one of urgency. There is not one hon. and learned Member who has done it. Probably, as they have not got a very good trade union—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I thought that I would not get agreement on that one. As their union was inactive on this, I thought that some of my trade union friends would have thought it right to do it. But, no; there is not an hon. and learned Member who has asked for this matter to be raised or dealt with.
I thought that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General would tell us that, as things are at the moment, the poor judges cannot manage and that a number of them have resigned. Again, I have no knowledge of any who has resigned, and certainly none has resigned because he cannot manage on his inadequate salary. As far as I know, over the last few years none of them has died in poverty, or without leaving a few thousand pounds.
I mention this because it has been suggested that judges' salaries must tie up with the salaries of Members of Parliament. They have nothing to do with the salaries of Members of Parliament. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Members may jeer, but we know that during the last 10 or 15 years there have been many hon. Members who lived in abject poverty, who could not afford to pay their hotel bills and for the necessities for their job. Many of them died in poverty. It is true that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said that we will see all this in HANSARD tomorrow. We will. I would advise you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to study it, because it will be very interesting.
It would appear that when the judges are on circuit they have a choice. They


may get only £8 10s. a day. But £8 10s., tax-free, is not too bad. There are plenty of hon. Members who, when they were forced to accept the sessional allowance, would have liked £8 10s. a day. I understand that not all of them draw the £8 10s.

The Attorney-General: rose—

Mr. Lewis: I am coming to the point about the head cook and bottle washer, about the judge taking his butler and cook with him. If he wants to do that, he should pay for it. If my hon. Friends bring their butlers and cooks down from the North, they pay them themselves. I would go further and suggest that if they get £8 10s. a day for it, they can well afford to have good butlers and good cooks.
Evidently, that was not good enough, because, to quote the Attorney-General's remarks, in recent times the Lord Chancellor set up a central pool of cooks and butlers, and they are paid from public funds. The daily allowance of these poor judges, who are served by cooks and butlers taken from the public pool—I am referring not to dock expressions, but to the public pool of cooks and butlers—is reduced when they make use of the pool. When three or four judges in the same lodgings are provided with a staff at public expense, they have to manage on a daily allowance of only £5 2s. But £5 2s., plus cook, head butler, head bottle washer, and so on, is not too bad. I hope that hon. Members will read about this in HANSARD.

The Attorney-General: rose—

Mr. Lewis: I am sorry. I will give way to my colleague from West Ham at any other time, but not now. I am treating this matter with levity now, but I will treat it seriously when I conclude.
This matter is a scandal. Hon. Members opposite may say, "The hon. Member has no connection with the law", but I have the Solicitors' Journal. I thought that the Attorney-General would refer to it. This is not a trade union document—or is it? I do not know. However, it supports my right hon. Friend the First Secretary's plea for wage restraint. It says:
Nevertheless, we wonder whether the time is not ripe for a positive gesture of good will. On just over £150 a week gross a High Court Judge can afford to be generous.

It goes on to suggest that it would be a good idea if they showed how they supported the incomes policy by not going ahead with this proposed increase.
I have dealt with the question of the emoluments. I have adequately explained that there is no comparison, and no question of comparison, with M.P.s, who have to meet their hotel expenses themselves. Fortunately, I am not in this category, so I do not have to shout. I am a London Member. M.P.s must pay for their lunches and dinners. As a London Member I do not have to. M.P.s have to pay their travelling expenses to their constituencies and all the other things. Whether that is right or wrong, and whether M.P.s should or should not have had an increase, is not now the issue. A committee sat to consider the problem. There was an inquiry and its report was published. There was a reference to M.P.'s pay during the election. I hope we shall not have the comparison with M.P.s trotted out.
This is completely contrary to the Government's own declared pledges. It is completely contrary to the Government's incomes policy. It is completely contrary to the pledges and pleas which hon. Members opposite have been making for everyone to show restraint. They always appeal more to the trade unions. To be fair, we appeal more to directors of companies and to shareholders. Both sides appeal to trade unions, on the one hand, and to those in receipts of income from shares, dividends and directors' fees, on the other, to try to limit it and show some regard for an incomes policy.
Why do we not follow this policy on this matter? Why do not the Government do it? The Attorney-General went to great lengths to explain the comparison with what percentage increases have or have not been made. I am sure that there are very many thousands of people, not only of old-age pensioners, but disabled pensioners, the chronically sick, and so on, who are in much greater need and are much more deserving of a meagre increase than those who are to receive the vast increase proposed in the Bill. What about teachers? We are told that the country is very short of teachers. Why not give them a 25 per cent. increase, because we need teachers? That would be worth doing.
I do not criticise the Government for having had to do unpopular things because of what they inherited. I am not complaining at the fact that, far from reducing mortgage and interest rates, they have increased them because of what they inherited and have had to deal with. But they do not have to adopt a Measure which the Tories prepared. Why do the Government have to put into effect legislation which the Tories prepared? Because they gave a pledge? [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] If they did not give a pledge, why should they do it? I do not know who is right on this. I understand that there was a pledge. It is now said that there was not a pledge.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: rose—

Mr. Lewis: I will not give way. I heard what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said before. He said that a statement was made in another place to the effect that it was the former Government's intention to do this. Good luck to them. It was not my intention. It was not my hon. Friends' intention. It was the former Government's intention. I cannot see why I should support this Government in doing the former Government's work for them; and I shall not, Whips or no Whips. I will not do it.
I go further and say that it is no criterion to say that people have or have not had increases on what they got 150 years ago. Is it to be said that, because a person gets a certain income, he is entitled to claim as of right his 2½ per cent. or 3 per cent. or 3½ per cent.? Is that to be the incomes policy? Mr. Wilfred Harvey may well say, "I have been getting £270,000 since 1954, but I have had no increase since 1954, so I want 15 years' back pay at 2½ per cent." He might well say that he also wants the increase.
The hon. Member for Exeter (Sir Rolf Dudley Williams) always makes very good interjections and he made a good one tonight. He asked, "What about the tax-free allowances?" The Attorney-General missed the point. The hon. Member was referring to what is not only a gross anomaly, but an absolute liberty taken with Her Majesty's taxpaying subjects in that if a Queen's Counsel or barrister decides to retire from the Bar he can take his last year's income free of tax.

Mr. F. P. Crowder: Nonsense.

Mr. Lewis: It has been declared in the House to be the case. It is true.

Mr. Crowder: Will the hon. Member give way?

Mr. Lewis: The hon. and learned Member can make his own speech.

Mr. Crowder: On a point of order. If the hon. Member makes a statement which is manifestly untrue, and for which he has no authority whatsoever, should he not at least allow somebody to intervene? He cannot deceive the House.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Samuel Storey): That is not a point of order. The hon. and learned Member for Ruislip—Northwood (Mr. Crowder) will have an opportunity of replying to the hon. Member's argument.

Mr. Lewis: It has been declared in the Press and in the House and Chancellors of the Exchequer of Governments of both parties have admitted that that is the case.
I was about to say that these hon. and learned Members, before they become judges, are invariably Q.C.s and invariably, when they resign from the Bar before becoming judges, have this tax-free income. There may or may not be an argument for this salary increase—I do not think that there is—but if ever there was an argument for that increase there certainly cannot be, by any stretch of the imagination, a claim for a 25 per cent. increase in the pension rights of the Lord Chancellor and other judges.
An hon. and learned Member may be giving up £15,000 or £50,000 a year at the Bar to take over the Lord Chancellor's job. I do not begrudge him that income. He can have £100,000 for all I care, but if he gives up £100,000 a year to take a £15,000-a-year Lord Chancellor's job, and he knows that there is a chance that he may be turned out of that job because of the people's democratic vote, he takes that chance and if he is getting a £5,000-a-year pension that is adequate enough. I do not see why he should have another £1,250, making the pension £6,250.
I asked Questions about this matter. I confessed earlier that I do not speak


much in the House, but I do ask a lot of Questions. I received an Answer to this Question on pensions. The Attorney-General was right to refer to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmuir, and to say that he does not draw his pension—now that he gets a reputed £20,000 or £30,000 a year from the business world. That is true, but legally he could draw it, and legally, for a fortnight, he did, until the Press reported it and then he decided to stop drawing his pension. I am not complaining. If that is what the law says, he is entitled to claim it, and I make no objection. Why should not he have it? If the law says that, in addition to his £30,000 a year, he can have his pension, let him have it. All I say is that the law is wrong. The law should not entitle a man in that position to have £30,000 or £40,000 a year and the right to claim not only £5,000 now, but a proposed £6,250.
Again, there is no comparison with Members of Parliament. We contribute to our pension fund. We have to do 10 years. The Lord Chancellor can do 10 months on the Woolsack and draw his pension. [Laughter.] That is not laughable. It is serious. It is a disgusting situation. The poor old-age pensioner outside who works for 40 years to build up the wealth of this country goes on to a few pounds at week, and if he stays on at work his pension is pro tanto reduced.

Sir Rolf Dudley Williams: rose—

Mr. Lewis: No, I shall not give way. It is a crying shame that a Labour Government, of all Governments, should have the audacity to suggest that a man should have £6,250 a year if he wants to draw another £30,000 a year from business.
My right hon. and learned Friend went on to explain that some of these chappies do judicial work. No disrespect to you, Mr. Speaker. "Chappie" is an affectionate term. Some of these chappies in the House of Lords, so we are told, do some judicial work. Do they? Here again, I have had some Answers to Questions. There appear to be three entitled to draw the pension, and, apparently, only one draws it. I assume that he is the one who is acting in a judicial capacity, and I assume, also, that he is doing it in the House of Lords. I must name him, the noble Lord, Lord Dilhorne. Is he performing

his judicial function when he is leading Tory revolts against the democratically expressed will of this House and bringing in provisions restricting the trade unions?
I am speaking in all seriousness about this. Am I, a Labour man who objects to his politics, and who openly and frankly says so, to be expected to pay this man £5,000 a year and vote him another £1,250 a year on top to enable him to sit in the House of Lords? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] All right. He will not get it. But the principle is the same. This noble Lord is now drawing £5,000 a year, and he has led a revolt against the democratically expressed will of the people as represented in this House. No one can remove him. No one can take away his pension. No one can stop him. But I am told that he is acting in a judicial capacity. If he is, let the judiciary of the Tory Party pay him. Perhaps some hon. and learned Members opposite might even club round to help.
I started in a jocular vein, but I am very annoyed and upset about the Bill. My party sent me here—[Laughter.] Do not laugh. Every hon. Member has a party behind him, I hope. I have a very good local party and a very good national party. They sent me here to help carry out the programme and policy of the Labour Party in its election manifesto. They did not send me here to agree to increases for judges' pensions and salaries. This is true not only of me, but of all my hon. Friends. It is true of every hon. Member of the House of Commons, wherever he sits, because this was never put to the electorate by any party.
I have not canvassed my hon. Friends for their support, and I do not do so now. But I shall vote. Some of my hon. Friends might say that such a course will cause trouble for the party and the Government, but that is not so. The Bill would not apply until next April, in any case. Why are the Government so anxious to push it through now? Why not postpone it? If my hon. Friends say that a defeat on the Bill could have a dire effect upon the Government, I remind them of the words of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who has said that the Government will not fall on a defeat on a matter that is not a


major issue. Indeed, he has gone further.
The Conservative Opposition—good luck to them—by manoeuvre and manipulation were able the other night to get an Amendment made to the Finance Bill and the Government accepted it. I wish that we could carry my vote, but I am afraid that hon. Gentlemen opposite will not support me. But if the vote for it were large enough there would be nothing to stop the Government saying that, in view of the feeling of the House, they would postpone the Bill at least until the next Session.
Many of my hon. Friends have anxious eyes on Bills and Motions which they would like to introduce. The Government also have Bills ready which they could bring in in place of this Measure. We could all suggest other Bills if the Government are short of legislation. Do not let my hon. Friends be misled. If they have the courage to vote with me they will be doing what the overwhelming majority of the people would want. They would be doing what is right in all conscience in the name of the ordinary men and women in the country. They would be doing what we have said is right—giving an example to the country. I ask my hon. Friends to come with me into the Division Lobby, because that will show the country that we in the Labour Party can stand up for what is right and just.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Roderic Bowen: I thoroughly disagree with the attitude expressed by the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis).

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The hon. and learned Gentleman is a lawyer.

Mr. Bowen: I congratulate the Government on resisting pressure based on the suggestion that this is an untimely and unpopular Measure. The hon. Member is entitled to his views, but I ask him and the House to consider whether his speech was not, in the main, a denigration of the members of our judiciary and the functions they carry out in society. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Whatever the hon. Member's basic intentions, the way in which he expressed them was certainly an attempt to poke fun at many

aspects of our judicial system. To do that in present circumstances—

Mr. Lewis: rose—

Mr. Bowen: —is rendering a great disservice to society.

Mr. Lewis: rose—

Mr. Bowen: I want to turn from—

Mr. Lewis: rose—

Mr. Bowen: The hon. Member refused time and time again to give way. I am prepared to give way to any other hon. Member, but not to him.
I want to turn to one aspect of the Bill which is of considerable importance and which is completely devoid of controversy. This is the provision to increase the number of puisne judges in the High Court from 56 to 63. [Laughter.) I do not understand the meaning of that laughter. I am trying to make a serious contribution on a matter of interest to everyone who wishes justice to be administered, and administered without delay.

Mr. Lewis: rose—

Mr. Bowen: It has been said that justice delayed is justice denied. Circumstances at assizes at the moment are such as to give rise to anxiety in this connection. About a fortnight ago, the officers of the Welsh Association of Law Societies and the officers of the Wales and Chester Circuit met to consider this point, which applies particularly to the hearing of civil actions. [Laughter.] This is not a laughing matter. Perhaps hon. Members opposite think that workmen who have had accidents and who are waiting for their cases to be heard feel no anxiety and frustration when there is undue delay in the hearing of their cases.
What is happening especially at assizes, bearing in mind the increase in criminal work, is that civil actions are constantly being put back from one assize to another. That in itself is unsatisfactory but there is another unsatisfactory aspect in that it results in cases being settled when they would not have been settled, or when the parties are not anxious to settle on the terms obtained but are forced to do so when faced with the alternative of their suits not being heard until several months ahead.
I hope that advantage will be taken of that part of the Bill which is to come into operation immediately upon the Royal Assent to increase the number of judge days to deal with civil actions. Following the recommendations of the Streatfeild Committee, I believe that conditions for dealing with criminal cases are reasonably satisfactory, but that is certainly not so with the hearing of civil actions.
I now revert to the remuneration aspect of the Bill. One would have thought that what was proposed for Her Majesty's judges was exceptional for persons of great responsibility. However, I have had extracted in the Library information about what is happening in connection with persons holding positions of very great responsibility in other spheres, for example, in the higher Civil Service and the nationalised industries.
If one looks at those figures and sees what is proposed in the Bill it certainly cannot be said that these proposals are in any way remarkable or extravagant. May I mention one or two examples? The last occasion on which the higher judicial salaries were reviewed was in 1954. I have a list of a number of salaries in the Civil Service and in the nationalised industries for 1954 and 1964. In 1954, a Permanent Under-Secretary of State received a salary of £4,500 and in 1964 his salary was £8,885. A Deputy Under-Secretary of State received, in 1954, a salary of £3,250, and in 1964 his salary was £5,800.

Sir Douglas Glover: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman tell the House how long it was before 1954 that these Ministers had their salaries increased?

Mr. Bowen: I cannot give that figure. All I can say is that the judges had to wait 120 years for the rises they obtained in 1954.
In the nationalised industries the Chairman of the Electricity Council received a salary of £8,500 in 1954 and it is now £12,500. The comparable figures for the Gas Council are £6,000 and £11,000. The Chairman of London Transport Board received £7,000 in 1954, and now the figure is £11,000. It is difficult, in this sphere, to talk about the rate for the job, but if one compares what is proposed

in the Bill with the high responsibilities it is certainly not out of proportion to what has happened in relation to people with high responsibility in other spheres of public life. [AN. HON. MEMBER: "It depends what is meant by high responsibility."] Of course, it depends upon responsibility, but is anyone suggesting that the judiciary have not duties of very great responsibility?
In considering this, one should have that in mind. I have a quotation which expresses far better than I could what I would suggest should be remembered in this respect. It is a quotation from what the then Prime Minister, Sir Winston Churchill, said on the occasion of the Second Reading of the 1954 Bill. He said:
Parliament has to ensure that those few men who are capable of rendering this exceptional service in all its forms are attracted towards doing so, and that their circumstances when they have taken office are such as to enable their powers to be exercised in the public interest without financial anxiety or personal distraction."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th March, 1954; Vol. 525, c. 1063.]
I believe that that sets out quite clearly and specifically what should be our attitude in this matter.

Mr. Norman Buchan: In what respect is this any different from a shipyard worker, miner, teacher, or a dock worker?

Mr. Bowen: It is no different in the sense that what we have to decide is what is a reasonable and proper remuneration. That is the test. What I am saying is that the remuneration proposed in the Bill is perfectly reasonable and proper in the circumstances. That is the acid test and I believe that the Bill stands up to that test.

Mr. George Y. Mackie: Perhaps it would be agreed that the work done is not as great, as between a Member of Parliament and a miner or a shipyard worker?

Mr. Bowen: I agree. If the suggestion is that everyone should be paid the same wages, then I can understand the hon. Member's point of view, but that is certainly not the Government's policy.
I do not want to detain the House longer, although I am tempted to do so, in particular to deal with some of the points raised by the hon. Member for


West Ham, North. I welcome the Bill and congratulate the Government on having introduced it.

11.56 p.m.

Mr. R. T. Paget: We have first to decide, are the judges getting too little? Secondly, if they are, what about the timing? My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General talked about downgrading the judges' status. I am surprised to find that on this side of the House status is expressed in terms of cash. I hope that in this country status is not measured in that way. Some of the jobs which carry the greatest status are not paid at all. I think, for example, for example, of lord lieutenants.
We are told that the increase is necessary to maintain the judges' independence and integrity. It seems to me to be something of a reflection upon the legal profession that we can maintain their integrity only by paying very large salaries. A Member of Parliament requires independence and integrity, and if he is to do his job well he needs qualities about as good as the average judge. Many hon. Members have become judges, and I think they have been a good average as Members of Parliament—probably not much above or much below the average.
Can we find the men to do this job at the money? It is said that we must attract the best advocates. I do not agree with that at all. An advocate needs a power to assert himself over a court, a passionate belief in his own words, a tremendous interest in what he says and little interest in what anyone else says. These are just the qualities which do not make a good judge, and many of the best advocates do not make good judges.
What are the qualities which we need in a judge? They are men of the highest character, of course. They are careful, they are courteous, they probably have second or good third-class degrees. That is about the level that we require. One or two on the Chancery side have good first-class degrees and are outstanding, but for the ordinary type of judge we want good common sense with a certain amount of experience and not very much more.
Can we get that sort of man, who makes a good judge, for this money? Of course we can. It comes at an age when

he wants to cut down his work, and when he becomes a judge he cuts down to an enormous degee the work which he was doing as a barrister. This is a nice, gentle job which one can step into at that age. He gets a big bonus, tax-free, to start with, because it is not merely a year's salary; by postponing payment it can add up to a good deal more than that. He gets a pension earned more quickly than in any other job—and quite a good pension. It is nonsense to say that we cannot get the judges we want—and good judges—at the present money.
The trouble is that in the old days judges were paid vastly too much. When ones goes back a couple of centuries, and looks at what £5,000 a year meant, it would be the equivalent of £50,000 or more now. Why were judges paid at that level? It was to make certain that they were on the side of the rich. It was to commit the judiciary to property, and that was the sole reason why it was made certain that the judges saw things from the rich man's point of view.
If one looks at judicial law as it has developed, it has always been the development of the rights of property as against the rights of the individual. It is that judicial law which we in Parliament have constantly had to cut back to save the rights of individual people as against the rights of property. The idea that judges should be vastly highly-paid people is, I believe, socially wrong.
Having said that as to the level of payment, I now turn to the question of title. We are told that a pledge was given by the last Government. The right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) did not think so; he said that there was an expression of intention in another place. Some very definite pledges were given by my party, and some of those pledges are before us. One of those pledges was to bring public service pensions up to the purchasing power which they used to possess, to save them from inflation and to apply the principle of parity to public service pensioners.
That was a pledge which I was authorised to give and gave on behalf of this party. It has not been implemented, and it was our pledge and not that of the party opposite. [AN HON. MEMBER: "It is not the only one,


either."] Why is there this priority here?
We are told about the salaries of Members of Parliament. I do not think that the timing of the increase in the salaries of Members of Parliament was right. What happened in that case was that Members' salaries and the removal of prescription charges came in right away before we had run into the economic difficulties—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—which have prevented our other pledges being fulfilled. That is why this one came out of its priority. However, we know the situation now. We know that those pledges which were made to the public service pensioners are not being carried out. We know that they are not being carried out because of the economic situation.
At this point we take over a Tory pledge and say that we have to fulfil it. All this is a question of priorities. This is a Tory priority which we are accepting. We have been doing this far too much. We are told, "Ah, but you must support the Government". A critical point comes: at what point do we go on supporting Conservative policy because it comes from a Labour Government? We have had Conservative defence policy and ours was scrapped. We have had Conservative nuclear policy and ours was scrapped, and we have had Conservative foreign policy.
In economic matters, we have seen the handling of our economy through the acceptance, again, of a Tory priority, the first priority being the maintenance of sterling at a certain level as an international exchange currency. We have seen the handing over of the economy, broadly, to a consortium of bankers who dictate what sort of a Budget we have and as to what kind of payment we have. How long does one go on supporting that—a Labour Government in their conduct of a Tory policy? This is the problem which we had to face in 1931, and we are coming near to facing it again. As far as I am concerned, I shall not support the Bill. This is the point where I rebel.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I rise to ask my hon. and learned Friend, for putting the record straight—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I was asking my hon. and learned Friend a question.

Mr. Paget: I gave way to my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams).

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I apologise to the hon. Lady. I thought that the hon. and learned Member had finished his speech.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I should like to ask my hon. and learned Friend, for the sake of putting the record straight, whether he would not, on reconsideration, agree that the economic difficulties which face the Government are part of the Government's heritage, which is entirely the result of the Tory Government?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the hon. and learned Member answers that question he will be out of order. Mr. Howe.

Mr. Paget: With great respect, I was dealing with the point as to the various priorities. It is—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I allowed the hon. and learned Member, in his peroration, to range rather wide of the Question, which is on Second Reading of the Bill. Mr. Howe.

Mr. Paget: I was concluding, but I had given way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I thought that the hon. and learned Member had concluded. I apologise.

Mr. Paget: I shall certainly conclude in a moment, because I do not want to be long, but I do feel that the point has come at which the Government have got to face up not only to the difficulties which were created for us by the other side—of course, they were—but to whether or not to use the other side's remedies. They have been accepted. We cannot go on doing that.

12.7 a.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Howe: I intended to begin by saying that it was not for me to try to resolve the domestic conflicts between the Attorney-General and his colleague, the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis), but that conflict has now paled into insignificance beside the almost Freudian revelations by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), because we see now all the seething


frustrations which have been brewing all along on the Government's back benches during many months rise suddenly to the surface and breaking out on this issue and at the expense of Her Majesty's judges.
It is curious to see the Attorney-General in the rôle of catalyst in such a demonstration, but, so be it, that is the rôle in which he is cast. The way in which this demonstration has presented itself should, I think, be a cause of some concern, because it suggests, as the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) pointed out, a lack of awareness of the importance, in a democratic society such as ours, of the quality of judge, which is manifestly high, independent and effective.
The hon. Gentleman opposite is making observations while sitting down—[An HON. MEMBER: "On his side they want people's courts."]—but he has promised us a speech and no doubt we shall have it later.

Mr. Stanley Orme: rose—

Mr. Paul B. Rose: rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Member for Bebington (Mr. Howe) must decide to whom he will give way.

Mr. Howe: I am giving way to the more articulate Member.

Mr. Orme: I put it to the hon. and learned Gentleman that judges are in many cases divorced from the people. That is why the trade union movement is suspicious of these people who are removed from society and are protected in a far over-protected way in our present society. I would ask the hon. Gentleman whether he does not think that these salaries, based on the remuneration they are asking, is not excessive, and that perhaps dedication to service would be much more useful from judges than asking for more money.

Mr. Howe: The hon. Gentleman has made an interesting intervention—

Mr. Rose: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Dr. Horace King): Order. When the hon. and learned Gentleman is answering an intervention, it is unreasonable to intervene during the course of it.

Mr. Howe: If the implication of the suggestion that Her Majesty's judges are divorced from the people were taken as far as it could be, it would lead in the direction of the creation of a system of people's courts, which, in my submission, is not the kind of society that we would like to create. I take the hon. Gentleman's first point to some extent, and I shall come back to it later.
The hon. Gentleman should not underrate the importance of the judicial system and its working today. Judges are called on to make decisions on claims by injured workmen, and it is important that the highest quality of legal mind—their training is a different question—should be directed to these disputes. It is a fact that within recent years members of the Bar, people of high quality, have been attracted to other non-judicial activities with substantial fringe benefits, far beyond those to which the hon. Member for West Ham, North referred.
At all levels of society we are living in a competitive world in which the labour market is at work and where the rate for the job has to be paid to get the quality of man that is required. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I understand that hon. Members who have spoken have been listened to. I hope that they will not interrupt from a sedentary position.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I apologise, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but it was spontaneous, because I have a great deal of sympathy for nurses.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman but even if it is spontaneous it is still outside the rules of order.

Mr. Kirk: Has my hon. Friend any evidence that the labour market is not working in this case? His argument must postulate that people are not becoming judges because they cannot afford to. Has he any evidence of that?

Mr. Howe: I do not want to dwell for too long on that, but I am prepared


to deal with it. There is evidence that a number of members of the Bar are being attracted at various stages—

Mr. Kirk: Are they becoming judges?

Mr. Howe: People who would have made good judges have been attracted to other jobs.

Mr. Kirk: From the Bench?

Mr. Howe: Not from the Bench, because it is inconceivable that they would be. I am saying that potential recruits of high quality are being diverted from the Bar. I am glad that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir J. Hobson) bears me out on that.
The argument being presented from the benches opposite suggests the existence of a malaise and disquiet about the working of our legal system which is spreading and is not without foundation. It is important that Her Majesty's judges and all those responsible for the working of the law and the legal system should take account of this. Her Majesty's judges have the rôle not only of administering the law in our courts, but also of setting the framework within which it operates. Their influence as a body and as individuals is substantial on the substance of the law, on the machinery and management of the courts, on the organisation, and on the education of the legal profession.
Their rôle and influence on all these things is substantial, as the leaders of the profession. They have a direct influence over the machinery and operation of their own courts, and they can express a corporate view on any shortcomings of the way in which the courts as a whole are working. On the substance of the law, their corporate view can make itself felt, and on the profession they can exert substantial influence.
The hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) mentioned the mounting difficulty arising from cases awaiting trial on circuit, in the courts of Her Majesty's judges. This is a real problem, which is causing growing inconvenience that has been tolerated for too long in the running of the courts. If any member of either branch of the profession makes personal representations to Her Majesty's judges about the working of a

certain court he will be received with courtesy and attention.

Sir D. Glover: Is there any evidence at all that if Clause 3 of the Bill were implemented there would be any difficulty in increasing the number of judges from 56 to 63 on the present remuneration?

Mr. Howe: My hon. Friend is taking me away from my main argument. I should have no difficulty in answering the point, but I should be grateful if hon. Members would be patient and listen to my argument, which is important.
The point is that our courts, both in and outside London, are so overloaded with work that case after case is often put into a court's list and not reached. This involves inconvenience not only for the legal profession—we are paid to be inconvenienced—but for witnesses, including medical and expert witnesses, members of juries, and parties. It also involves loss of valuable time.
I know of an occasion on which a dozen steel workers, immobilising half a plant, were put on parade for three days in respect of a case that was not reached. Leaving aside the question of the time of medical and expert witnesses, that is one manifestation of the ineffective working of the machinery.

Mr. Abse: Would not it be fair to say that many of the difficulties of which the hon. Member is speaking come not from a shortage of judges, but from the rigidity of the Bar, which often refuses to alter judges' arrangements? The inconveniences that arise are due not to the causes that the hon. Member is emphasising, but to the attitude adopted by both sections of the Bar. [Interruption.]

Mr. Howe: Some of my hon. and learned Friends heartily disagree with the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse). I would not disagree with him as fiercely as that. I suspect that many of the shortcomings in our legal system are due to the conservatism of both sides of the profession and the reluctance of both sides to do what is necessary to make the system more efficient. It is in that respect that I regard the responsibility of the Bench as important. The overloading of lists is one matter and the way in which the lists are made up hopelessly late in


the day, so that litigants are called from the other end of the country at short notice—

The Chairman: Order. Second Reading debates do go rather wide, but the hon. Member is getting a little too wide now—unless he can relate his argument either to the question whether judges should be paid more or whether their number should be increased.

Mr. Howe: I was aware that there are limits to the territories that we can cover in this debate, but my argument is related, first, to the question of additional judges, and, secondly, to the reason why increases in judges' remuneration are more and more resented. Judges are regarded as being responsible for these shortcomings. I suggest that they should be taking a lead, at the head of the profession, in putting these shortcomings right. The Lord Chief Justice has recently arranged for divorce cases to be heard on a fixed day, and has done a great deal to improve the arrangements for circuits. We have more fixed cases in London. But the system still remains a nightmare for many of those who work in it, let alone the litigants whom we are trying to serve.
This is because we have a system in which cases are often regarded as a kind of fodder, to be wheeled in front of the judges who, because of the pressure upon them, are obliged to take the fodder as it is fed to them. It may be inevitable in the present system. Yet the Evershed Committee said 12 years ago that this is the only civilised country in the world where cases were not fixed, where a litigant did not know well in advance the date on which his case would be tried. I do not know whether, in the framework of the existing system, it is possible for the judges to achieve efficiency of that kind, which we should like to have.
To the extent that we do not achieve it, their image and reputation is tarnished, because they are regarded as the "head man" of the legal system. I believe that it is wrong that public respect for our judges should be diminished by shortcomings of that kind in the working of the courts. I hope that the judges will try to meet criticism

of the kind which we have had by themselves pressing for the rapid implementation, as a matter of interest to them and to the legal system as a whole, of the kind of reforms which have for so long been canvassed.
Another feature which may make them less respected and less deserving of these higher salaries is the fact that they may no longer be doing the kind of work which is most important. So much of their time is spent on cases of traffic accidents and industrial injuries. I recollect one case in which three counsel, together with full supporting cast, detained one of Her Majesty's judges for three days in determining whether a railway wagon was the property of one nationalised corporation or another, so as to decide which should compensate an admittedly innocent workman. So much judicial time is taken up with that sort of thing that many of the important issues are being diverted to non-judicial tribunals.
The real rôle of Her Majesty's judges is tending to decline and the important decisions are moving away from them. It is important for them to take the lead in restoring the courts to the central areas of dispute in our society, and to do it not only on the basis of providing the "Rolls-Royce" justice of the highest possible standards which we have at the moment, but on the basis that our legal system needs at one and the same time its Henry Ford and its Professor Buchanan to enable it to give public service of the kind which is needed.
I turn now to the organisation and integration of the legal profession—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman is still a little wide. We cannot reform the legal profession in this debate. We are deciding whether to pay Her Majesty's judges more money and whether to increase their numbers. All his arguments should be addressed to the Bill.

Mr. Howe: I accept your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I can make this point quite shortly, if I may—

Mr. Ian Mikardo: If it is out of order, it does not matter how short it is.

Mr. Howe: The hon. Gentleman is right, but I do not need him to tell me that.
The judges play a major rôle in the education of the legal profession. They make up well over half of the membership of bodies like the Council for Legal Education. I believe that the long-proposed reforms of the educational system of both halves of the profession and the long-proposed integration in the educational system would enhance the reputation of the legal system and of the judges. It is something for which the judges ought to press if they are to go on appearing to deserve the increased remuneration proposed in the Bill.
It is over 100 years since a Royal Commission last considered this subject, and since then, in the 1870s and 1880s, many judges took the lead in introducing legislation in another place to implement the reforms suggested by that Commission, but they fell by the way. I hope that the present generation of Her Majesty's judges, to uphold the high reputation they have, will again take the lead in that respect. If medical education deserved consideration by the Robbins Committee and the appointment of a Royal Commission to look at it as a whole, then it would be splendid if Her Majesty's judges were to take the lead in proposing the establishment of a Royal Commission to consider the whole of legal education.
I have covered the main points that I wanted to make. They seem to me to be important. The attitude, understandable in many ways, of hon. Members opposite and some of my own hon. Friends on this side to the proposed salary increases appears to be symptomatic of the feeling that Her Majesty's judges could be giving a more powerful lead in the preservation of those aspects of our legal system that we believe to be important. I believe that it is important that they should give the lead in the pursuit and preservation of the substance of the rule of law, rather than the shadow, and of the substance of the real virtues of our legal and judicial system.
If they are able to do that, then the next time a Measure of this kind comes before the House, I have no doubt that it will be received with warm and enthusiastic cheers from both sides.

12.26 a.m.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: If I do not comment on the observations of the hon. and learned Gentleman for Bebington (Mr. Howe), that is not the result of any intended discourtesy towards him; it is merely because I want to say something about the Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman has clearly expressed views to which he has given much thought. I am sure that he has given highly skilled thought to the need for reform in certain parts of the legal profession. I expect that, one day, he will give that lecture to the Bow Group, but I cannot think why he wanted to rehearse it in the House.

Mr. Howe: I am so glad, as I am sure the whole House will be, that the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) is as proud of the Bow Group, which was born in his own constituency, as he appears to be. We are grateful that he should acknowledge his parentage.

Mr. Mikardo: I acknowledge my debt to it very freely indeed. It is my main source of amusement.
Before I turn to the observations of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General on the Bill, there are two matters that were mentioned by Members opposite to which I would refer. There seemed to be some confusion about a statement of the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) and the reported views of my right hon. and learned Friend about what took place in March of last year. The right hon. and learned Member for Wirral said that all that happened was that the then Lord Chancellor made a statement in another place. But I have heard it said that, before that statement was made, it was shown to the then shadow Cabinet, who agreed it. If that is so—[Interruption.] The Opposition Chief Whip is telling you to shut up, so you had better shut up.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is more than the Chief Whip dare do to ask the Chair to shut up.

Mr. Mikardo: My apologies to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. It was nice to watch the hon. Gentleman opposite being publicly disciplined for once.

Sir D. Glover: All that the Chief Whip was doing was inquiring whether the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) was referring to the then shadow Cabinet. I


thought that he meant the present shadow Cabinet, which was then in government. I understand, however, that the hon. Gentleman was referring to his own party's shadow Cabinet when in Opposition.

Mr. Mikardo: I said it with absolute clarity, and the Chief Whip understood me. I will say it again now in monosyllables, for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman. I have heard it said that these words of the then Lord Chan-cell-or were agreed in ad-vance with the then sha-dow Cab-in-et. [Laughter.] I trust that the hon. Gentleman now has the point.
The question which arises—I cannot put it to the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral, because he is not here, but perhaps one of his hon. Friends will answer it on his behalf—is this: was he arguing that because the then Lord Chancellor made that statement it bound any future Government? If so, this is a very strange doctrine. If that is not being argued, why do we have the Bill now?
Is it not because the Government feel bound by a statement of the Lord Chancellor of another Government, but because they gave their assent at that time to the Bill? If so, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) is absolutely right in saying that this Government are being much more meticulous in honouring the pledges of the previous Government than they are in honouring the pledges made when they were in opposition and when they went into the General Election. We should have this cleared up.
The right hon. and learned Member for Wirral says that there is no more in it than something which took place in March, 1964, and which, in the jargon of 1965, would be called a declaration of intent. There is a declaration of intent that there would be wage restraint. There would be a different wage policy for judges from other people. If so, it is a different situation from what some of us have been led to believe. I hope that before the night is out we shall have clarification on this point either from hon. Members opposite or from the Government Front Bench.
I should like to refer to one observation of the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen), who, also, is not here now. He talked about people with responsible jobs and gave some examples. We can all choose our own examples. I do not know many jobs more responsible than the job of a man who drives a 3,500 horse-power electric or diesel-electric engine along a main line at 80 miles an hour with 600 people behind him and their lives in his hands. Such men have been negotiating for more than a year an increase in wages less than one-thirteenth of the increase we are proposing to give to the judges.
In an overcrowded legislative programme which is taking us right into August, and in which it has been impossible to deal with Measures which the Leader of the House has admitted are desirable, but for which, unhappily, he has not time, I wonder by what yardstick or criteria of responsibility the hon. and learned Gentleman would assert that we have to give priority to legislating an increase post-dated till next April for judges more than 13 times as great as the increase which locomotive drivers have failed to get in a year of negotiation?

Sir Tatton Brinton: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us, if he knows it, what increase those men to whom he has referred have received since 1954?

Mr. Mikardo: I do know, but I think that I should be out of order in quoting it. I am not saying that their case is on all fours; of course it is not. They have had increases over the years, and I will turn to that question in a moment. But that is not germane to my point. The question is one of urgency. We are squeezing in this Bill after 10 o'clock at night and at the fag-end of a Session which is overcrowded and this part of which will overrun by a fortnight because, we are told, the Bill is desperately urgent.
I take the hon. Gentleman's point. Without wishing to make any direct comparison between locomotive drivers and judges, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he would still be here at 12.35 a.m. if the Bill concerned locomotive drivers?

Sir T. Brinton: My attendance has been rather more frequent and longer than that


of the hon. Member since I have been a Member of the House, only nine month. Perhaps I shall learn better when I am an older Member, like he is.

Mr. Mikardo: If I had known that there was to be a silly intervention like that, I should not have been so ready to give way. That is a deliberate distortion of the point I was making. I will not measure my attendance by comparison with that of the hon. Gentleman's. We can do that in the morning without bothering the House.
I was not complaining about the hon. Gentleman's attendance. I was trying to make the serious point that the hon. Gentleman would not be here, and many other hon. Members would not be here, and perhaps I would not be here, if the Bill concerned the wages of locomotive drivers. We would not have a Bill for their wages. The only point I am trying to argue is that we are getting our proportions all wrong.
The Attorney-General made a speech which I have heard in different contexts many times. I was the speech of a trade union organiser putting forward a wage claim on behalf of his members. It was very well done. If my right hon. and learned Friend were not such a distinguished lawyer, he could get a job in any trade union. His speech had all the characteristics of the conventional speech of the trade union organiser in support of a wage claim—"My members have not had a rise for a long time. They have been overtaken. They have been leapfrogged by other people who have had more rises in the same time. We are not sure that the wages are high enough to attract suitable applicants for the job."
The Attorney-General made this speech in circumstances in which one of his right hon. Friends, with the support of the whole Government and of many of us who are not in the Government, is trying to get an incomes policy accepted. My right hon. and learned Friend argued that this is a special case for an exception to the incomes policy. He may be right about that. What he is doing is encouraging the putting forward of many more special cases. If we are to be practical, what is breaking the incomes policy and what led to

that cri de coeur from my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State is not that people are not accepting the incomes policy—my right hon. Friend got an overwhelming majority for that—but that far too many people are treating themselves as exceptions to it.
I, as one who has tried to get the planning of wages accepted within the trade union movement, who argued for it and wrote about it 15 years ago, before the First Secretary had it as a glint in his eye, tell my right hon. and learned Friend that he is giving great encouragement to those who are eroding his right hon. Friend's incomes policy by accepting the incomes policy for everybody else's income but their own. That is what is eroding the incomes policy—the tendency of too many groups of people to treat themselves as a special case.
There is great weight in what my right hon. and learned Friend said. It is true that it is 11 years since the judges had an increase in salary. It is true that if this 25 per cent. is divided by 11 it works out at about 2 per cent. and is well below the guiding light. There is force in the logic of the Attorney-General's case. He should bear in mind, however, that reactions are not always based on logic and that in commerce and industry atmosphere and psychological factors play a very large part.
I do not know what the National Coal Board will say to miners who ask for 30s a week more for five shifts of eight hours a day or seven and a half hours a day. The miners will say, "But the judges were given another £40 a week." How many weeks of the year do they work? Perhaps my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General can tell me that. How many hours a week do they work in the weeks of the year that they work? What is the length of their working week and their working year? All my right hon. and learned Friend's advocacy and logic will not help Lord Robens to face a wage claim for 30s. a week for underground workers when they ask, "Why do you say you cannot afford it when you give the judges £40 a week rise?" This is a serious and important situation.
I sympathise with my right hon. and learned Friend when he makes the powerful and valid point that in the case


of the small number of people whose remuneration is fixed by legislation it is always the wrong time. We all have had experience of this. He said that Members of Parliament and Ministers have suffered from it at various times. It is a bit cheap to say, "It is the right thing to do but, this is the wrong time," and if that were all that we were saying my right hon. and learned Friend would be within his rights to "take a crack" at us and say that that was not fair. But we are saying more than that.
It has been said that the increases are not to come into force before next April and that a Bill could be introduced next Session and in good time. It is the rush of it that will affect the workers in the factories. This is what they cannot understand. They will say, "When you conduct trade union negotiations you are lucky to have a settlement a year after the claim is made. These 'bods' are getting a settlement eight months beforehand." The men in the railway shops and the mines and the dockyards will not begin to understand why—

Mr. Norman Miscampbell: Will the hon. Member accept two points? The first is that judges are asked to deal with cases which as to 80 per cent. of civil actions are concerned with people on the factory floor and their compensation. Secondly, it is well known that people of the highest calibre at the Bar are leaving for competitive industries. On that basis, is it possible to put forward the hon. Member's present argument?

Mr. Mikardo: The answer to the only real point in what the hon. Member has said has been given several times, and mostly from his side of the House, which is that one does not have to advertise situations vacant for judges for 10 weeks on end before one has an application, which is sometimes the case with engineers. There are more candidates than there are vacancies on the Bench.

Mr. Rose: The Bar Council, in its annual report, states that the number of persons in the legal profession has increased and that far fewer leave the profession now than did a few years ago.

Mr. Mikardo: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I do not know all that much

about the legal profession, but I know that although I see advertisements on the back pages of the Sunday papers for weeks on end for certain jobs in industry I have never seen one appear there for weeks on end advertising for a judge.
I apologise for having detained the House for so long and I make a last point. I am sure that many of us were moved by the latter part of the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton. I do not think that there is any Member of the House who is held in greater respect for his sincerity than is my hon. and learned Friend. We all know that he would not have made a statement of such gravity unless it came from deep feeling and from his heart. I understand—and I think that it was a bit silly of one hon. Member opposite to try to sneer at it—the sense of frustration which my hon. and learned Friend felt. He is, of course, not alone in it. He is not alone in resenting—if I may steal his words—having to support Tory policies merely because they are implemented by a Labour Government.
My hon. and learned Friend said that this was his last ditch. I understand him. But I must tell him that it is not mine. I shall vote for the Bill, though with reluctance. I do not think that the Bill is necessary at this time, but I do not regard this as an issue of sufficient weight and importance to justify hon. Members on this side of the House causing embarrassment to the Government, who have got so much on their plate. If one is to use one's vote, as I suspect I shall have to do one day, to register in tangible form objection to Tory policies carried out by a Labour Government, there are worse Tory policies to vote against—and I have a horrid fear that there will be opportunities of voting against them.
While I appreciate the depth of feeling of my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton, I hope that there will not be many of my hon. Friends who follow them into the Lobby on this occasion. I think it right that those who feel as we do should make their protest. I hope that there will be no curtailment of this debate, because


all those who feel in this way should say so, and the louder the better. But, in the end, I do not regard this as an issue which ought to be treated as a last ditch.
I shall vote with the Government, but I want them to understand—they may not care twopence one way or the other—that it will be the most reluctant vote I shall have cast since I voted in the Division on Seretse Khama.

12.47 a.m.

Mr. N. R. Wylie: I shall not discuss judges' salaries except to say that I consider that the Government are acting thoroughly properly and responsibly in introducing the Bill in the way they have. I wish to raise a purely Scottish point. Of course, from the nature of things, we have heard little about Scotland in the debate so far.

Mr. Ivor Richard: Before he delves into Scottish matters, will the hon. and learned Gentleman, who was one of the Law Officers in the previous Administration, kindly answer this simple question? Was there an agreement between that side of the House and this that the Bill had to be introduced? If there was such an agreement or an understanding, a great deal of this argument would cease and, I am sure, a lot of my hon. Friends below the Gangway would understand and appreciate why the Bill is being introduced tonight. If there was not such an agreement, please let us know. This we must have.

Mr. Wylie: I understand that the reference was to March last year, and I became a Law Officer only in April. If there was such an agreement, I know nothing about it.

Mr. Richard: Was it on the hon. and learned Gentleman's desk when he arrived at his Department?

Mr. Wylie: I personally know nothing about it, if there was one.
I want the Minister of State to answer this question. Why has the opportunity not been taken to increase the establishment of the Scottish Bench? The hon. Gentleman will have expected me to raise

this question. He knows as well as I do that, in the last 17 years, the establishment of the Scottish Bench has been raised by only three. Since 1948, three additional judges have been appointed, one under the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1956, one under the Criminal Justice Act, 1963, and one under the Resale Prices Act, 1964. This brings the Scottish establishment at present up to 18.
On each of these occasions, the legislation imposed further duties and obligations on the courts. Since last year, of course, we have had the Law Commissions Act which has abstracted for all practical purposes one of the judges. Thus not only do we have a situation in which we are one judge short. I understand that tomorrow the Solicitor-General for Scotland is to be made a judge, which will bring the number of judges up to 17 and not, as stated in the Explanatory Memorandum, to 16. Be that as it may, the position is that there is only one reserve, as it were, if it becomes necessary to increase the number of judges on the Scottish Bench.
In the last few months, as I know from my own experience, the volume of work in the Scottish courts, particularly the High Court, has gone up substantially. This was the foreseen result of the recent introduction of legal aid in criminal cases, and the sittings of the court on circuit are taking longer and longer.
I understand that, for several months, the Second Division of the Appeal Court in Scotland has not been able to sit because there have not been enough judges available to cope with the work of the Appeal Court and, at the same time, the work of the Outer House and on circuit. A very sound explanation should be given as to why there is no provision in the Bill to increase the establishment of the Scottish Bench. I suggest that it should be increased by two.
This is not a party political matter. I ask the Minister of State if the Government consulted the head of the judiciary in Scotland as to the need and desirability of increasing the establishment of the Scottish Bench, because I heartily believe that if the Lord President had been consulted his advice would have been for an increase.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Mr. Rhodes.

Mr. Rose: After the remarkable speeches from this side of the House, particularly that of my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis)—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I am sorry to stop the hon. Gentleman, but I called Mr. Rhodes.

12.54 a.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Rhodes: That error occurred on another occasion, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, when my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) was seeking to move a Motion relating to Northern Ireland and I was under the threat of having my house blown up instead of his, which would have been most regrettable.
I have given a great deal of thought to this issue during the last few days, since my hon. Friends drew my attention to the problem that it poses. While I understand and appreciate the sentiment of my hon. Friends, I think that they are wrong. The sentiment they have been expressing is basically one of having a more egalitarian view in relation to salaries, to try to close the gap between—shall we say?—the very high salaries which go to members of certain professions and the remuneration of the workers. I do not believe that this kind of problem can be dealt with in isolation in relation to this Bill.
Indeed, I would argue that, in the kind of society which exists in this country, we can only get this kind of egalitarian approach by fiscal and taxation policy. I do not care whether the Government take 19s. 6d. of every £1 increase in judges' salaries. That would be perfectly within my conception of an egalitarian approach to income. But I do not believe we can deal with this kind of problem by voting against the Bill.
Many false arguments have been raised. Hon. Members have compared the hard work of judges with the hard work of shipyard workers, but that is useless because we do not get paid, under our existing system, on the basis of how much hard work we put in. Let us view this with reality. It has nothing to do with

the kind of physical, or, in some cases, mental effort required. Comparisons have been made between engine drivers and judges. Again—and the two responsibilities are hardly comparable anyway—the fact is that we do not remunerate people on the basis of responsibility. In the society in which we live today we remunerate people basically on the basis of their scarcity value, on the basis of the laws of supply and demand.
Some of my hon. Friends may not like that. As a Socialist, I find a great deal of fault with it, but we have to live in the real world and, as Socialists living in the real world, many of us have pressed to get greater equality of post-taxation income, which is the correct way to tackle the problem. If there is a scarcity of higher legal skills, bearing in mind the competition for these legal skills both at the Bar, on the one hand, and the judicial Bench, on the other, the case for the Bill is substantial.
It is argued that the remuneration should be on the basis of need. In terms of need it is arguable that a young barrister with the early responsibility of setting up a home and a family for the first time should start on a judge's salary and should get less as his responsibilities become less. The same argument could be used for teachers' salaries, but that is not a realistic assessment of the kind of society in which we live. The main basis for remuneration in this society must relate to the professional responsibilities and the scarcity of the skills involved.
I do not agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) that salaries and status are not connected. They are. The status of the profession of judges will be judged by many people on the basis of the remuneration for the job.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) argued that the Government were faced with a heavy legislative programme and had got their priorities wrong. That is a false argument, because the time required to pass this simple Bill will not in any way impede the great social legislation which the Government will pass in the coming months of this Parliament.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North asked why this 25 per cent.


increase should not go to the teachers. I was a teacher for 10 years. I remind my hon. Friend that if every extra penny to be spent on the salaries of judges under the Bill were to be paid to teachers, it would not make a penny difference to individual salaries. The issue of public service pensions was also raised. That, too, is an irrelevant argument. The amount of money involved does not in any way affect other negotiations which are now going on. As a teacher may I say, in passing, that the remuneration of teachers has rightly been increased during the last 10 years and that there is now under arbitration a salary claim for approximately a 12½ per cent. increase.
There has been a great lack of logic in some of the arguments put forward by my hon. Friends. It might be said that some of us can afford the luxury of exercising our consciences this evening and voting against the Government on the assumption that hon. Members opposite will not vote against the Government. I want to warn my hon. Friends not to trust hon. Members opposite. There is a distinct danger this evening that if my hon. Friends, for whatever good motives they have, vote against the Government on a matter which I would have thought to be one of some confidence in the Government's policies, we may find ourselves in the very odd position of a very unholy alliance, not necessarily intended, of the Left wing of the Labour Party, on the one hand, and the Tory Party, on the other.

Mr. Mikardo: Teach your grandmother to suck eggs.

Mr. Rhodes: I am teaching my grandmother to suck eggs, but I have as much right to speak in this House as my hon. Friend.
I do not agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton that the Government are to be condemned in such an outright manner as conducting Tory policies. I do not believe that the Tory Party would have introduced the National Insurance Bill to increase pensions in the face of an economic crisis, or the Rent Bill, or a Finance Bill which was fought through against the bitter opposition of hon.

Members opposite. I do not believe that this Bill is of sufficient merit for my hon. Friends to seek to bring down the Government.

1.0 a.m.

Sir Douglas Glover: I find myself in a very strange position tonight. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo), because it was only towards the end of his speech that I realised we were still divided across the Floor of the House. At one stage of his speech I was prepared to say, when I got up, that if he wished to divide the House, I was willing to be a Teller with him. Towards the end of his speech he said that discretion was the better part of valour and that he intended to support the Government. I agree with every word of his argument.
I oppose the Bill, with the exception of Clause 3, which increases the maximum number of judges to the High Court of England from 56 to 63, because I believe that the Bill is being presented at the wrong time and in the wrong circumstances. I am not in any way going along with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), who, I thought, was very unfair to the legal profession in his remarks about judges.
I believe that it is right that the country should be the envy of the world in the standard of its judiciary and that we should do everything to maintain that standard. There have been speeches from both sides of the House, and if I may say so without giving offence, from the strongest trade union lobby in the House, making a powerful case why there should be a 25 per cent. increase in judges' pay.
We are not debating whether the legal profession should maintain its high position in the national opinion, or whether there should be a wage freeze on judges for the next 100 years. What we are debating is whether it is wise of the Government to bring forward this Bill for Second Reading today, 14th July, 1965, in the middle of a financial crisis, largely brought about by their own methods and lack of judgment. I do not want to enter into this subject, but it is at a time when the First Secretary of State is doing his utmost to try to bring about an incomes and wages policy.
I have a great deal of sympathy with the judges. I am sure that most of them are lining up outside the National Assistance offices getting remuneration for blankets to keep the cold off their beds, or for coal. The picture which has been created is that here is a community which is very badly treated.
We know that this is not so. What is to be the result of the Bill at this time, when there is a crisis in the nation's affairs, when we are trying to get responsibility in income, and to get coal miners and engine drivers and signalmen to moderate their demands for increased pay because it is creating an inflationary bubble? The coal miner will say to Lord Robens, "My condition is desperate, yet you say that you cannot do anything about it. But the judges are able to get a 25 per cent. increase."
I know that the amount of money involved in this infinitesimal. If the amount involved in the Bill were put on teachers' salaries or miners' wages, it would probably not make a penny difference to each one of them. But that is not the point. The point is the psychological reaction of people. If we say that the judges are in a special category, who is not in a special category? For centuries the judges have been the leaders and formers of public thought. It is surprising that, when they heard of the intention to introduce the Bill, they did not say, "Please do not bring it in at the moment. We shall pay the bulk of the increase away in taxation, but we realise what a deplorable effect the increase would have on wages negotiations over the next 12 months."
The hon. Member for Poplar said that this was not a big enough issue on which to divide the House. It is a scandal to bring in a Bill of this importance after 10 p.m. I believe that this little Bill could easily go down in history as the final wrecking Measure of the present Administration. What will the First Secretary, or Mr. Aubrey Jones, Chairman of the National Board for Prices and Incomes, say to any argument put to them after this? The amount of money involved may be minute but the psychological effect will be great.
The Conservative Government, when they tried to damp down remuneration, were told that they were being unfair,

but when they were conducting a campaign to moderate the demand for increased salaries they did not choose that time to introduce this sort of Measure, which would have made their arguments nonsensical. The Government have shown than they have no clear assessment of how ordinary men and women think. I am not at all hostile to the judges. With my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bebington (Mr. Howe), I think that a review of the whole legal structure is probably called for. The bulk of the British people have great regard for the integrity of the judges and the legal profession. In normal circumstances the Bill would have been thoroughly justified. I am criticising the Bill not on its intrinsic merits, but on its timing.
If hon. Members opposite feel that the issue is sufficiently important for them to vote against the Bill, I will vote with them. I cannot completely set aside political considerations, but my basic objection will be to the psychological approach of the Bill to our economic problems. It will do the nation a great disservice and probably double the problems which we have to overcome.

1.10 a.m.

Mr. Paul B. Rose: I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Rhodes) for having risen when his name was called. I am sorry that as a result of the similarity of our names he should have been threatened with having his house burned down, although after listening to his speech I am not so sure.
It is not possible to discuss the question of an increase in judges' salaries without referring to the whole context in which this matter is brought forward, and that is the context of a wages policy and a guiding light. I am more than a little concerned, therefore, at the timing of the Bill, quite apart from any question of principle in it.
I am not unduly impressed with the argument that the judges have had to wait for a number of years before having this increase, because part of the wages policy is not merely to provide a 3½ per cent. increase per annum or the equivalent, but is also a policy of social justice in trying to rectify past discrepancies.


That is why we justify an increase greater than 3½ per cent. in the case of, say, postmen, nurses and other public servants whose wages have been depressed in the past.
It is not on this basis that we can justify the kind of increase that is proposed at this time for members of the judiciary. We are dealing with figures which, to the average man in the street, are staggering. To a man who takes home, say, £15 a week, the figure of £8,000 is quite outside his normal experience. If we are asking people, as we will be, to limit themselves and to accept restraint, we cannot at one and the same time ask the nation to stomach this sort of thing.
I should like to take up one or two of the arguments of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. He referred, for example, to the fact that there was a great deal more to be done in the divorce courts. Then, he demolished his argument by stating that special commissioners are brought in to do this work. If special commissioners are brought in who are not High Court judges but very often are county court judges, what is the justification for saying that High Court judges must do the work and that this is a reason for higher salaries?

The Attorney-General: Has not my hon. Friend met a great deal if dissatisfaction and criticism at the use of commissioners who, able as they are, are often regarded as second-class judges and give the impression, at least, of the litigant receiving second-class justice? I am not saying that this is true, but surely my hon. Friend must have met this time and again as a complaint at the Bar.

Mr. Rose: I am not prepared to accept that argument in relation to the average undefended divorce case. I am not prepared to defend a vested interest merely because it is in my own personal interest. That is one sphere where, I am sure, the present special commissioners are doing very well. I have had no cause for any dissatisfaction with any special commissioner before whom I have appeared.
Surely, the basis of the argument is not one which would justify an increase in salaries although it justifies an increase

in the number of judges. Nothing that my right hon. and learned Friend has said or that I have heard in the debate leads me to believe that anything is needed other than an increase in the number of judges. We have had no evidence to show that we cannot get those judges if we do not increase the salary by 25 per cent.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis), who made a remarkable and entertaining speech, said that in taking the view that we do, we on this side were denigrating the judiciary. It is far more denigrating to say that the only way in which we can preserve the strength, independence and integrity of the judiciary is to pay them £2,000 more. The integrity, strength and independence of our judiciary is, however, beyond question and nobody would question it, although some of the things which have been said are putting it in issue.
I regard the Bill as one of the least important items in a programme of a Government who are intent on radical reform. Many of us cannot understand why, so late in the Session, when so many other vital and urgent matters are being awaited with eagerness by hon. Members on this side, we should have been forced at the last minute to sanction a Bill which can have a very damaging effect upon the whole basis of our economic programme. Last week or the week before we were asked to give landlords permission to ask 15 per cent. more per annum from their tenants. Now we are being asked to give 25 per cent. more to the judges, but the average worker, on the factory floor, is to be restricted to 31 per cent. I do not think that we should underestimate the psychological impact of all this.
I do not believe that this issue is important enough, and because I do not I would not advise my hon. Friends to divide the House. We have a Government who are intent, we hope, on the kinds of reforms so much needed in other spheres, and it would be a great shame if we were to give the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) the satisfaction of dividing the House on this issue and thereby, as he says, wrecking the Labour Government. For that reason my hon. Friends, I hope, will not follow him into the Division Lobby, but I think we must make it very clear, at the


same time, that we are registering a protest, that we are not satisfied with this, and that the Bill ought to be lost in Committee somewhere: it ought not to be proceeded with.
It seems a great shame that at this late hour the Bill should have been brought before the House. On this basis, I would ask my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench not to resent the fact that some of us have stayed up late and kept other hon. Members late to register a protest. This place is the place where protests must be registered, but, other than that, I would not advise my hon. Friends to divide the House.

1.17 a.m.

Mr. Forbes Hendry: Like the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) I think that the Bill is completely and utterly ill timed. We have waited for a great many years, about 11 years, for the question of judges' salaries to be brought before the House, and it seems to me that, in the economic condition of the country at the moment, this is not the time to introduce a Bill of this sort.
It seems to me, also, that no thought whatever has been given to the level of salaries being proposed for the judges. A judge has a very responsible position, and ought to be paid a proper salary for the job, but no thought seems to have been given, in preparing the Bill, as to what is a proper salary for a judge. In the Bill there is a great variety of salaries for various judges whose duties are not defined in the Bill, and we have had not explanation from the Attorney-General about the relative merits of these judges.
We find that the Lord Chancellor is to receive a very large salary indeed. He is, as has been said, a sort of universal joint in the machinery of Government, and he has a great deal of responsibility, and he ought to be paid in accordance with that, but whether £14,500 is the correct salary for him I do not know. However, when we compare his salary with that of other judges mentioned in the Schedule to the Bill it seems to me that his salary is at an extraordinary figure.
The first I would mention is the Lord President of the Court of Session. He is, in Scotland, in exactly the same way as is the Lord Chancellor in England, a sort of universal joint; not head of the judiciary in Scotland, but having very important administrative duties in Scotland, not only in the law but in many other ways as well. It seems completely illogical that the Lord Chancellor should have the salary proposed, £14,500, when the Lord President, who occupies very much the same position in Scotland as that the Lord Chancellor does in England, is proposed to be paid only £10,000. I should like the Minister of State to explain why this tremendous discrepancy should occur.
Not only do we find this discrepancy between the Lord President of the Court of Session and the Lord Chancellor, but we find that certain English judges whose duties are certainly not comparable with those of the Lord President of the Court of Session are to receive very much higher salaries than the Lord President. There is the Lord Chief Justice. He may be a very important man, but he is simply a judge. He is not an administrator in the same way as is the Lord President of the Court of Session. Then there is the Master of the Rolls. I do not know what he is: I am a Scots lawyer. He is to receive a bigger salary than the Lord President.
I want to know why that is. We Scots Members are entitled to know, and I hope that the Minister of State will tell us. I would have liked the Lord Advocate to be here to tell us, but we are denied that privilege because the party opposite has been unable to find a seat for him in Parliament. It is possible that some day we will have the learned Lord Advocate here to tell us these things, but I cannot say that we will ever have a learned Solicitor-General for Scotland, because he seems to be rather difficult to get.
There may be a scarcity of judges in Scotland. It may be difficult to get people to accept the duties of a judge in Scotland, but I understand that the learned Solicitor-General has been appointed a judge and is to take up his post tomorrow. If it is difficult to get suitable counsel to become judges in Scotland, why are judges there to get a salary of only £8,250 compared with the £10,000 which a puisne


judge in England is to receive? Why should there be this difference?
It is no answer to say that traditionally there is a difference in the salaries of English and Scottish judges. I think that these salaries were fixed in the reign of King William IV, and what may have been a mistake then should not be perpetuated now. If judges' salaries are to be adjusted, this anomaly ought to be removed, and the Lord Ordinary of the Court of Session in Scotland ought to be given his proper place alongside a puisne judge in England. He is doing the same job as his English counterpart. His dignity and his responsibility are the same as those of English judges. Indeed, in the case of some Lords Ordinary, it is greater, and I cannot see why this discrepancy should be continued. I hope that in Committee the Minister of State will move an Amendment to ensure that Lords Ordinary of the Court of Session are paid the same rate as puisne judges in England.
I do not know whether the Minister of State knows it, but certain of the Lords Ordinary of the Court of Session have an appellate jurisdiction, and are not in the same position as puisne judges. I am not sure what the position is in England, but I know that here they have Lord Justices of Appeal. As far as I can make out, these Lord Justices are in the same position as judges of the Inner House in the Court of Session who act as appellate judges and who have a much greater responsibility than has a puisne judge in England.
I am sorry that none of the Northern Ireland Members is here.

Mr. Richard: I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. He started by saying that he thought that the Bill was ill-timed and that we should not pay judges more. He is now arguing that we ought to pay Scottish judges more than is paid to the English ones. What is the hon. Gentleman's argument? Is it right or wrong to do what is proposed in the Bill?

Mr. Hendry: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop my argument, he will find that I argue in a complete circle and then come to my logical conclusion. I should like to consider this

in a roundabout manner and come to my conclusion in a logical way.
The discrepancy between Scottish and English judges is indefensible, and, speaking on behalf of Irish judges, for whom I have no brief, it seems even more indefensible that there should be an even greater difference between the salaries of a puisne judge in Ireland and a puisne judge in England than there is between the salaries of a puisne judge in England and a Lord Ordinary in the Court of Session.
These differences are indefensible, and that brings me back to where I started, that the Bill has not been thought out. It is characteristic of the legislation introduced by the party opposite. Since the election the Government have introduced a number of Bills which have not been properly thought out, and which have had to be altered radically in Committee.
The hon. Member will be glad to hear that I am now right back where I started. This Bill has not been properly thought out. Arbitrary figures have been taken. There is to be an arbitrary increase of 25 per cent. on the old salaries of judges. I suggest that the Attorney-General takes the Bill away and thinks about it again. I suggest that he gives proper consideration to the question of what should be the proper salaries for judges, and makes sure that we have a Bill which contains at least a germ of common sense, so that judges of equal rank in the three countries are paid the same salary.
If the salary is properly £10,000 a year—or whatever it is—we should be told why it is that, and why it should not be applicable universally. The thing is nonsensical as it stands. A puisne judge in England at the moment gets £8,000 a year, and the salary proposed for a Scottish judge is £8,250 a year. If £8,250 is right for a Scottish judge, why should an English judge get £10,000? That is obviously wrong. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk that the Bill should not be proceeded with any further.

1.26 a.m.

Mr. Leo Abse: The most interesting exchanges that took place in the course of this debate were those that took place between the Attorney-General


and the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) concerning the origin of the Bill. This is the matter to which many of us are now directing our attention. When this matter is cleared up—which I do not doubt it will be—it will determine my attitude and that of many other hon. Members.
What concerns us is that we heard two speeches that were indistinguishable one from the other—one given by an able, learned lawyer and the other by an extinct lawyer. Both had the same tone and the same content. They were speeches belonging to the Establishment. What we have witnessed tonight is not an eruption against the Government, but an eruption against an Establishment that is beginning to creak.
So much is it beginning to creak that even the facade normally presented when the Establishment gets moving is beginning to show signs of stresses and strains. For example, the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral made it abundantly clear that his Government, when in office, were committed, through their Lord Chancellor, to bring in a Bill of this character. Of that there was no doubt. The one difference between the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral and that of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General was that my right hon. and learned Friend appears to have scruples whereas the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral has none.
The right hon. and learned Member made it abundantly clear that he thought this was an ill-timed Measure. He attributed this belief to the fact that our economic circumstances were different now, and made it clear that he would not have brought in the Bill. Therefore, we are asking why the Bill which is being so badly received by the House as a whole has been brought in.
I believe that judges have a right to be well paid. Becoming a judge usually means a considerable immediate financial sacrifice. It means a peripatetic life, which could cause groans to many a commercial traveller. It means a retreat into loneliness that would drive a gregarious Member, such as my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis), into melancholia.

But the burden of the judges must not be exaggerated. When hon. Members who are attached to the legal profession begin to embark upon a eulogy of their work and exaggerate their burdens they do a disservice to their profession, and certainly to the dignity of our courts.
The salaries of judges are not inconsiderable. Their security of employment is almost limitless. Not for them any fear of redundancy payments. It would require an Address from both Houses of Parliament to dismiss them. Their persons are attractive, their holidays are long and the respect which is usually and rightly accorded to them and is always demanded by them from the community is immense. I would say to the hon. Member who introduced some ingenious argument about the wage structure that the judges are not "pop" stars; they are not tycoons collecting companies, they are not film stars. Sophisticated men perhaps sometimes have some transient envy when they see these people earning large sums, but they do not respect them, they do not hold them in awe. I am appalled by what I thought was an extraordinarily vulgar assessment of the status needs that should be accorded to judges, which came from the Attorney-General and one or two other hon. Members.
We do not respect the judges because we measure their salaries. This type of petty bourgeois vulgarity ill becomes this country and I hope that it is not the sort of yardstick we will ever use in judging whether we have good or bad judges. It is true that the nation gives boundless respect to the judges, and that is because of their disinterestedness, because the nation wishes to believe that they are on Olympian heights and distinguished from those mere mortals down below who are possessed of frailty. It is clear from the debate that the judges need to look at their charisma. They do themselves no good by pressing—as they must have pressed—for claims of this kind in this context. They have clearly provoked in the House tonight a needless and destructive enmity.
We are all aware that, after an ill-timed pay award to Members of Parliament—however justified it may have been—how damaging it may be to be suspected of preaching and not practising—

Sir T. Brinton: The hon. Gentleman has suggested that the judges have been pressing for increased salaries. Has he any proof of that?

Mr. Abse: That is just the point I want to come to.
When I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) describe the Attorney-General as having given the classical trade union argument for an increase, he provoked and aroused still further my suspicions, for few hon. Members sense a classical trade union argument more rightly and quickly than my hon. Friend. There is, in fact, a history to the wage claims of judges which this demand is bound to evoke. We must recall what occurred in 1931. That, too, was a time of national crisis, a time when people felt very keenly about the economic situation of the country. We recall the refusal of the judges in 1931 to accept the cut of 20 per cent. in official salaries which was authorised by the National Economy Act of 1931.
To answer the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Sir T. Brinton), I should like him and the House to recall that the pressures which were then placed by the judges on Lord Sankey—then Lord Chancellor—were quite extraordinary. Lord Sankey has recorded that while nearly all the humble sections of the community were accepting what were—as those of us who are old enough to recall will recall—heavy burdens, the judges were, to use Lord Sankey's phrase of the time, like the men of Invergordon: mutinous.
Nearly all the judges protested individually to him. He has recorded all this. Many of them had private interviews, and there were repeated deputations representing the King's Bench Division, the Appeal Court, the Admiralty Division and the Chancery Division. When they had finished with that, the judges, who had all the skill of any trade unionist, challenged the legality of the authority of the Act itself.
As if that were not enough, in their determination not to have any reduction in what was then £5,000 a year, for good measure they threatened to draw up and present a petition of rights to the Crown. If any trade union official wants an object lesson on how to extinguish the income guiding light, all he needs to do,

I am sorry to say, is to read the history of the judges' trade union activities in the national economic crisis of 1931.
That is one of the many reasons why I am on inquiry. I am on inquiry still further because I recall what Winston Churchill said in 1954, when the last award was given to the judges. He was speaking at a time when, for 120 years, there had been no interference in any form with the salaries of judges. Those salaries had been fixed, as the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has rightly said, for reasons which are founded in the social structure and facts of that time. On that occasion, Winston Churchill said this:
It is not likely that another 120 years will pass without some alteration, but there should at any rate be a fairly long period, perhaps a generation, before what we now decide shall be altered, except by tax reduction, so that those discharging these high functions, who have their whole lives to live within strict and rigid limits, should have a reasonable basis on which to work."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd March, 1954; Vol. 525, cc. 1060–61.]
Certainly, the judges have benefited by the tax reduction since 1954, because quite clearly, in view of the different Surtax range which has come into existence, the judges have had the benefit which Winston Churchill at the time anticipated.
It is really no use for my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General in the light of that categorical statement of Winston Churchill, to attempt to adduce the argument that they have not had the types of increases that other people have had. It was never intended at that time that they should have. What was intended was that as far as possible there should be a degree of finality, and it is clear that that type of finality was a finality of something like a generation ahead.
Therefore, when we are thinking of these vast vistas of time envisaged in 1954 of course we are suspicious when, suddenly, once again there is this demand. I do not speak about this because I have any churlish resentment about judges having any more money. I accept as much as any other hon. Member the need for an independent judiciary, and one which is genuinely independent. I am as jealous about that as I am about the need for us to have an independent Legislature.
The one Motion standing in the House at the moment criticising the judges is because I and 100 other hon. Members have considered on the question of the damages for personal injuries judges have sought to usurp the rôle of the House. I certainly do not flinch from saying that it is necessary that the independence of the judiciary and the independence of the Legislature should be absolute and should be safeguarded.
Of course, the test that must be made at this moment of time when a demand is being made for an increase of salary is a test that is being made at a time when I am bound to wonder whether our Lord Chancellor has been receiving some of the clandestine buffeting which went on with Lord Sankey in 1931. At the same time, the test applied must be the same us that which is applied in any factory or workshop. I do not think that there is a right to any distinction. Before any wage increase is coming forward, I want to ask what efficiency is being offered and what degree of productivity in the courts is there which would justify an increase of this kind? Goodness knows, there is a need for it.
I was dismayed that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has repeatedly today been emphasising that one of the needs for the Bill to increase the number of judges is because of the awkward situation that men who are not High Court judges are being created commissioners to take divorce cases.
I take an interest in divorce matters, as the House knows. I asked the last Administration, and I have asked this Administration, when undefended divorce cases would be taken in the county courts. This is a widespread demand, not only within the solicitors' profession, but outside it. If this were to come about, it would be unnecessary to appoint the additional judges provided for in this Bill. Why is it that this matter which was to be considered by the last Administration is still being considered? Why is it that discussions are still going on with the Bar Council and the Law Society?
Why has this proposal not been implemented? The only argument used was certainly not the argument which I suspected would be used by the Attorney-General today, namely, whether the

quality of the county court judge metamorphosised into a commissioner was sufficient. The argument which has been used is that if it were implemented all the majesty which should attend the severance of marriages would go and marriage contracts would not receive the respect which they deserve. This is a little more of the humbug which it is well known surrounds so much of the divorce law of this country.
My suspicion is that again the vested interests are at work which believe that if the doors of the county courts were flung open in this way members of the Bar would not have to attend and that there would be a reduction in the number of High Court judges needed. It is for reasons of this sort that the issues are being clouded.
I can speak with clinical knowledge and from professional experience about divorce matters. I say categorically, having seen lay magistrates dealing with complicated, sophisticated problems of law with great efficiency, that there is no need to create more divorce judges to deal with matters which are and can be dealt with even by lay magistrates and certainly by county court judges.
As has been mentioned by the hon. Member who drew attention to the need for streamlining the administration of justice, there is no reason for suggesting that this would fling so much more work on to the county court judges. I have asked before, and I ask again, how much longer county court judges must spend one week in four acting as agents for hire-purchase companies which manipulate and use them so that they can have judgment summonses? This work could easily be swept away to registrars. If county court judges took on divorce cases, we should not be asked to make provision for more judges.
If the Attorney-General had come to the House and indicated such a reforming zeal that we could see that there was the prospect of greater efficiency and productivity in the courts, we should look more kindly on this proposal to create more judges. The Government readily conceded to me earlier this Session that it was their considered view that the law and practice relating to damages was unsatisfactory. We have heard from the Attorney-General and other Members


how burdened High Court judges are as a consequence of cases involving industrial accidents. They concern all of those of us who have any connection with the trade union movement. Yet, although, belatedly, we have had a half-hearted suggestion that there will be a reference of this matter to the Law Commissioners, we do not know whether they will direct their attention to it.
Is it not wrong that we should be asked to create more judges at a time when we do not know what changes may come about in the law and practice relating to damages? I hope that more actuaries will be available and that something will be done about the miserable damages now being awarded in courts to men who have received industrial injuries. I am not encouraged by the idea that if judges are made more remote by higher salaries they will have a deeper appreciation of the need for men to be awarded proper damages for the quality of life which they have lost as a consequence of serious industrial accidents.
I suggest that there is a failure in presenting in this wretched sort of way a Bill at this late hour, a Bill at the end of the Session, a Bill of which one suspects everybody is slightly ashamed. One suspects that this is why it is being introduced in this way. It is unfortunate that it is being introduced without any indication that, parallel with it, there will be the same changes and alterations as to the administration of justice as would be expected to take place on the workshop floor if a group of men were asking for a rise.
If we are to pay judges this increased salary, and there are to be more judges, is it not time we asked ourselves from what section of the community judges are likely to be drawn and what sort of training they are likely to have? It is not a comforting thought that at present a man can become a judge perhaps as a consequence of taking indifferent food in an Inn. The lack of sociological understanding in their training programme makes me wonder whether we are at this stage justified in talking about increases. After all, as we know from many of the interventions which were made in the debate on the abolition of capital punishment, barristers-at-law may know a great deal about the criminal law, but they are

not trained to know anything about the aetiology of crime. They are trained to know how to sever marriages, but they have no training in how to deal with them.
If we are to have judges who have regard and respect for the community, before we think about increasing their salaries we should think how we can be sure that they have a broader appreciation and a greater understanding of the needs and problems of the wider community. For most people unversed in law, their certainty that justice will be found in the courts rests not upon legal systems, not upon carefully built up precedents, not upon bills of right, not upon Magna Cartas. It rests upon the deservedly high reputation of our judges.
At this time, when every loyal trade union member and every loyal member of the Labour Party is attempting to educate and tutor the nation to understand the need for an incomes policy, it is most unfortunate that the judges should be so remote from understanding the psychology of the nation that they should be pressing this demand. The fact that those who administer justice to others put themselves in a position, as they are clearly doing as a result of this debate, in which it should even be thought that private gain is more in their minds than the national interest is chastening to all of us who take pride in our legal system.
I deeply regret that the Bill should be before the House at this time. I think that the judges would be wise to take the action referred to in the Solicitors' Journal and voluntarily recognise that this comes at a bad moment from a group who are expected, as we are expected, to give clear leadership to the nation at a time of economic crisis. If this Bill goes through in its present form, it can only be a triumph for the Establishment over wisdom and common sense. I hope that it will be the desire of the House to bury the Bill in Committee.

1.49 a.m.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: We have begun to make rather heavy weather of the Bill. I do not think that there is any need to make long speeches at this time of night. It is high time somebody on this side of the House who does not make his living in practice at the Bar said something in favour of the Bill.


Although I am a member of the Bar, I only once had a brief. I lost the case and cost my client 10s. I decided that I would leave the law alone.
I took the advice of the Lord Chancellor, who had accepted 100 guineas from me a little earlier to be his pupil. As I had been elected to this House, he said to me, "You cannot do the two things together from the beginning. You had better chuck this and go to the other". I do not know whether I did the right thing, but I do know that the judges—

Mr. Buchan: Did the hon. Member get the 100 guineas back?

Mr. Grant-Ferris: Yes, I did. I meant to emphasise that fact and I reminded the learned Lord Chancellor of it only a few days ago.

Sir D. Glover: It only shows that my hon. Friend would have been a great success at the Bar.

Mr. Grant-Ferris: I do not know about that. The thing is to say a word here when one gets the chance and one feels that one ought to speak.
I should like to say a few words on behalf of the judges who I think are a very popular institution in the country, much more popular than this House is with at least half the country all the time. There is no time when this place is not extremely unpopular with somebody whereas the judges are, except with the criminals, a popular institution. If we are to continue to get the best men that can be found in the profession to serve on the Bench they must be paid properly. The country believes this.
The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis), whose sincerity I respect, is utterly wrong and inconsistent in opposing the Bill tonight, because no one has fought more than he has for the proper payment of Members of the House. It ill becomes him to say that the other part of our constitutional system, the judges, should not be given the same advantage in these days of inflation. I hope sincerely that the House will support the Bill.
I also think that my hon. Friend the Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) is wrong tonight. If a thing is right to

do, it does not matter about the time. It ought to be done. The judges are so important, such a popular institution, so respected and so deserving of our attention that we should see that they are properly paid. I hope that as many hon. and right hon. Members as think that will be here to go into the Lobby in support of the Bill tonight, whether they are paired or not.

Hon. Members: Oh.

1.53 a.m.

Mr. William Molloy: Many of my fundamental objections to the Bill have already been expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) and my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) and, therefore, I will not try to reiterate their observations.
I was shocked and surprised when the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) said that it seemed almost a disgraceful thing for us to criticise judges at all. I find that not merely a simpering, syncophantic attitude, but a very dangerous one. When it is necessary anyone should be severely examined and criticised by the House. No one should be put on a special pedestal to avoid examination and criticism here.
A feature to which I should like to draw the attention of my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench is this incredible argument of percentage increases. Do they believe that we can say to the rank and file or officers of the trade union movement, "Over a number of years you chaps have had an increase of 50 per cent. Your wages have gone up from £10 to £15 while the poor judges have scraped up from roughly about £4,000 to £4,500", or whatever it may be? Do they really believe that this sort of argument will go down on the workshop floor, in the factories, in the great estates of this nation which are the docks, the airports, the coal mines and where the great machines turn? They are absurdly and dangerously mistaken if they do believe it.
It is putting those trade union officials who are doing their level best to give support to this Government and the First Secretary of State in the terrific job that he has done in a most difficult position, and, more than that, it will give a lot


of grist to the mill of other people in industry who do not want the First Secretary's policy to succeed. I hope that some of my hon. and right hon. Friends will take this point into account as well.
If we believe in justice in the House of Commons, it is ironic that in a Bill dealing with judges there is, in the view of many of us on this side, so much injustice to working people. I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to consider the proposal that this matter be delayed. It will be extraordinarily difficult for all of us, on either side of the House, whether we are trade union officials, company directors or anything else, to go back to our constituencies and tell people who work in the mines, in the docks, on the railways and in transport that they must be prepared to hold back their demands while, on the other hand, a small minority are allowed to leap forward.
We could well set in motion tonight a chain reaction of feeling which could be extremely dangerous not for the Conservative Party, not for the Labour Party, but for our entire nation.

1.57 a.m.

Mr. Michael Noble: I am sorry to have to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris), particularly as he is, I believe, the only Member not a practising lawyer who has spoken in favour of the Bill, but I oppose the Bill for three reasons.
The first is quite simple. Speaking as a Scotsman and knowing a little about Scots law, I know that what we now need in Scotland is more judges, not more pay. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Wylie) said, we are short of judges to deal with the number of cases which are arising, and it is perfectly clear that there is no difficulty in obtaining judges in Scotland. The Minister of State will be able to confirm that tomorrow an hon. and learned Gentleman, not a Member of this House, is to be made a judge.
The Attorney-General talked with some passion and a good deal of special pleading about the difficulty of obtaining judges from among men who have been earning £20,000, £30,000, or £40,000 a year at the Bar because they will have to come down to the miserable pittance offered on the

Bench. But I doubt whether the Solicitor-General for Scotland, who is to be made a judge tomorrow, has ever earned £1,000 a year—probably not £500—at the Bar. Yet this makes it perfectly possible for him to become a judge. I am not in the least impressed by the argument, at least in Scotland, that one cannot get men to be judges, and good judges, because of the enormous fees they can otherwise earn at the Bar.
The second reason why I disapprove of the Bill at this time is its timing. I need not make a long speech about this; the point has been made time and again. I would merely add that, as far as I am aware, no undertaking has ever been given by this side of the House that a Bill of this sort would be produced at a time of this sort. I do not believe—and I have had some experience of judges and have a great many friends among them—that judges regard their status as coming from the salary they get.
It is true that many people called to the Bar, and who are making good salaries, are attracted out into industry because there are perhaps greater salaries to be made there or because of other reasons. But I have never met—although that does not mean that none exist—people who have refused to become judges because the salaries and conditions offered are not sufficient.
This is quite a different point and it is one which the Attorney-General, in a long speech, seemed to skirt most cleverly around. It was a speech that I would have expected from the Minister of State, Scottish Office, who has spent a great deal of his time learning the legal profession, judging by the number of questions I have heard him address to the Lord Advocate at one time and another. If there is cause to bring in this Bill today, then someone on the Government Front Bench must seriously address himself to these three questions, for so far that has not been done.

2.4 a.m.

Mr. Ivor Richard: I am obliged for the opportunity to intervene. I do so as a lawyer, but I hope that I will try to speak as a non-lawyer. The Bill is ill-timed, it runs counter to a number of the Government's economic policies and it would have been better had it not been introduced. Having said


that, it seems to me that there is only one justification for the Bill being introduced at this time. It can be summed up in a question.
Do the Government consider themselves in any way bound as a result either of a pledge given when in opposition, or as a result of a pledge given by the last Administration, or as a result of an undertaking, agreement, arrangement—call it what you will—reached between them and the last Government? If such an arrangement was made, if there was such an agreement at the suggestion of the last Government which was accepted by the Labour Party in opposition whereby the Government now feel honour bound to introduce legislation, then I, like a number of my hon. Friends will feel that I must support the Bill. We have heard from the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) that the Bill arises, apparently, as the result of an undertaking given in another place by a member of the last Administration. We were told by the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral that someone—I assume the then Lord Chancellor—gave an undertaking that judges' salaries would be raised by the last Administration, and that that undertaking was given in March of last year.
Let us have none of the humbug from the other side of the House about the economic results of the Bill. If there is any humbug and hypocrisy in the House tonight, it is from those hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite who, having given a pledge themselves to introduce a Bill to raise judges' salaries, are now attacking this Administration for doing so at a time of great economic difficulty what they themselves pledged themselves to do at a time when, on all the evidence, they must have known that economic difficulties were looming up.

Mr. Noble: The hon. Gentleman listened to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) and he heard my speech and I have heard him ask several other hon. Members, and in no case has he been told that there was a pledge to introduce a Bill of this sort at this time.

Mr. Richard: I entirely accept that there was never any specific undertaking that a Bill of this sort in these terms would

be introduced, but is it not also true—and this can be confirmed by the ex-Attorney-General—that there was a clear understanding between the parties that judges' salaries would be dealt with in this Session of Parliament?

Sir John Hobson: No.

Mr. Richard: I have heard other hon. Members, although not in the course of debate, say "Yes".
If because of that sort of pledge the Government are in honour bound, regrettable though it is, the Bill has to be introduced, but it does not lie in the mouths of right hon. Gentleman opposite to criticise the Government for introducing a Bill which they would have introduced had they been in power.
Regrettably, this is the second such example we have had in this Parliament. I remember the War Damage Bill and the long and furious debates in this Chamber and another place. That Bill was not even the result of an undertaking or arrangement between the parties, but was a specific Bill prepared by right hon. Gentlemen opposite and left on the Table for the present Government to introduce when they came to office. When that Bill was introduced, we had this spectacle of the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral repudiating the specific pledge given by his Administration when he was in office.

Sir J. Hobson: It is not right to say that the previous Administration gave any pledge of any sort to introduce the War Damage Bill. It is true that that Administration prepared a Bill, but it took no decision as to whether it would introduce it.

Mr. Richard: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that helpful intervention. One thing which I distinctly remember about the Burmah Oil affair was that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Government—although at that time he was not a member of it—wrote to the Burmah Oil Company warning it that it was proposed to bring forward that precise legislation. At one stage the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral took responsibility for that Bill and said at the Dispatch Box that he could not in honour vote against it. Yet


he voted against it on Third Reading. With this Bill we have exactly the same position—an arrangement made between the parties, an arrangement on which the Tory Party has ratted.
I say to my hon. Friends below the Gangway, "Beware the Greeks bearing gifts in this debate". We had a remarkable speech from the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) who, almost with tears running down his face, said how much he appreciated the efforts of the First Secretary, how much he agreed with the Government's attempts to introduce an incomes policy and, with his hand on his heart, how devastating it was, that the Bill would somehow wreck the whole fabric of the Government's economic policy, and that, therefore, he called upon hon. Members to follow him into the Division Lobby against the Bill.
Is it honestly to be believed by hon. Members opposite, and by the hon. Member for Ormskirk in particular, that my hon. Friends are so gullible as to fall for the oldest trick in the political game? When there is a genuine difference of opinion within the ranks of this great party, of which I am proud to be a member, the hon. Gentleman then attempts to divide it and draw half of them into the Lobby with him. That is a very old gag and I am happy to say that it will not work tonight.
I must mention some of the speeches made from this side of the House, in opposition to the Bill. I find myself in a great deal of agreement with most of the speeches which have been made. As I said, it is only with the greatest reluctance, and only because the Government feel themselves in honour bound because the Tory Party ratted on an obligation, that I feel I can support the Government in the Lobby tonight. I agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy), when he talked about the difficulties of relating the Bill to an incomes policy and I would agree with a large part of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo). I can entirely understand the motives that were behind these speeches and appreciate that they were sincere.
Regrettably, I heard the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). I say regrettably, because, having heard that speech,

it is necessary that certain things should be said. For a large part of his speech he took the line which has been taken by a large number of other Members on this side of the Committee, that the Bill was ill-timed. I have said that this is an argument with which I find myself in a great deal of sympathy. But in the last five minutes of his speech he proceeded to attack the Government for breaking their pledges on nuclear policy, on defence policy and on foreign policy. He even succeeded in lumbering us with the present economic crisis.
I have been in the House for only eight months, but I have listened carefully, and how anyone, on either side of the House, or in the country, can persuade themselves that the Labour Government are responsible for the present economic crisis which the country finds itself in is almost beyond belief.
My hon. and learned Friend even went so far as to say that the Government had sold out to an international consortium of bankers. That was the phrase he used. With the greatest respect, this sort of thing, in this debate, is almost beyond belief. The idea that the Government, with all the great tasks in front of them, with all the great things that they have set their hands to, will be brought down because of an increase in the Lord Chancellor's pension of £1,250 per annum is absolutely absurd.
As I listened to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton, a quotation came into my mind, which I believe was addressed by Lord Birkenhead to Lord Carson in another place, at the conclusion of an Irish debate, in the course of which Lord Carson had violently attacked him. The noble Lord concluded by saying that "as a piece of constructive Statecraft it would have sounded immature upon the lips of a hysterical schoolgirl."
I regret having to say that, particularly having been a Member of the House for only eight months, and particularly having regard to the fact that my hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Northampton is a member of my Chambers, but I could not leave the House tonight without at least registering one protest against the last few moments of the speech of my hon. and learned Friend, and saying, quite frankly, that


it does not help the cause of the Government, or the cause of his opposition to the Bill, to indulge in this sort of attack.

Mr. Paget: I did not say that we were responsible for the economic circumstances. Of course we cannot be, any more than Ramsay MacDonald was responsible for the economic circumstances of 1931. What we are responsible for is the manner in which we have dealt with them. It has been the Conservative manner. When one says that the £ shall be one's first priority and one goes to the banks to help one, then one is making them the master of one's economy.

2.15 a.m.

Sir Tatton Brinton: I have remained here long into the night, and I am keeping the House for a few moments longer, but I am one of the only two Members who have no connection with the law who are, nevertheless, prepared to defend the judges.
We have listened to many speeches, nearly all of them heavily attacking the proposed increases for the judges, who have been defended by a few Members, most of whom have been or are in the legal profession. It is time that somebody from the general mass of the population, as it were, spoke up for the judges and against some of the remarkable things which have been said. It seems to me that the Attorney-General needs some assistance, particularly against his own side of the House.
Hon. Members have rambled over many subjects, including parliamentary tactics and differences of opinion about the Labour Party's general policy. Could we come back to the case in point? My hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris) said something with which I entirely agree—and perhaps I am in a better position to say it than he is because of his previous connection with the legal profession. By the great majority of the people the judges are highly respected as representing an institution of great antiquity in which they have great confidence.
I have been surprised to find that so many hon. Members, not only opposite, but, I am sorry to say, on this side of the House, value this institution so little. One

hon. Member compared the task of the judges with that of people working on the shop floor. Another said that we have such respect for them that they must be above the general run of us and yet thought it petty bourgeois vulgarity that they should expect to receive a salary commensurate with their position
Many hon. Members seem to have no idea of the salaries which able and dedicated men can command in our society—or the incomes which can be made even by some hon. Members who have been talking about the Bill. A lot of nonsense has been talked about levelling down. Some hon. Members must in the past have admired that great Socialist State, Russia, but Russia has had to expand the differences between incomes in order to get its society run on the lines which are necessary.
Through this Parliament hon. Members opposite have talked about modernisation. Do they think that they will get modernisation and ability in any walk of life, including the legal profession, if they do not pay properly, especially in view of the fact that progressive taxation reduces the value of the increased reward which highly paid men receive? The right hon. and learned Gentleman made this very valid point in opening the debate. We are talking about an increase for most judges of from £8,000 to £10,000 a year. This means a total increase in spendable income of £779 a year. This shows the bite of taxation into increased incomes over a certain figure
Surely we are the last people to fail to realise that if we want the finest judges and the most dedicated judges we must see that they are set above the rest of us ordinary mortals not only in status but also to a reasonable extent in salary. To suggest that £10,000 a year in this day and age, especially in relation to what they have received in the past, is unreasonable is the most arrant prejudice. I defend the judges absolutely on this point, and I am sure that most people will.
There has been an attack on judges, not only on this but on other occasions, particularly by hon. Members opposite but even from this side of the House. The attack has been because the judges represent an independent and independently minded authority. This is our greatest


safeguard in this country and I uphold it 100 per cent. I am prepared to go into the Lobby and vote with the Attorney-General, even if nobody else is.

2.20 a.m.

Mr Michael Foot: I agree largely with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) and my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), and I certainly will not delay the House at this hour in repeating what they have said.
I hope, however, that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, if he replies to the debate or after the debate, will consider that a new situation has arisen in the House of Commons since he made his first speech. That new situation has arisen, first, because of the statement by the spokesman for the Opposition, confirmed by a member of the last Government, that in their understanding of the situation no commitment was made that a Measure of this kind should be introduced this Session. I think that I have correctly interpreted what the former Attorney-General said in an intervention.

Sir J. Hobson: No.

Mr. Foot: I should like to get it clear. I understood the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say that there was no commitment to introduce a Bill.

Sir J. Hobson: I am sorry if I did not make it clear that in my last intervention I was speaking only of the War Damage Bill concerning the Burmah Oil Company. I said that no pledge had been given in that respect that any legislation would be introduced by the previous Government. I am sorry that I cannot assist the House, although I can, perhaps, assist the hon. Member. Of course, the office of Attorney-General has nothing whatever to do with judicial salaries. I was not a member of the previous Cabinet. I do not know whether there was an agreement. I certainly know that there were discussions, but I was not a party to them. If there is any information about this, I am prepared to accept what is said by the Government Front Bench.

Mr. Foot: It cannot have been a firm commitment, because the former Attorney-General does not know whether

there was such a commitment, the former Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble), says that there was no commitment and the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) was not clear when he said that there was a statement in another place. The right hon. and learned Gentleman certainly did not say that there was a commitment to introduce a Bill this Session, because he also protested against the timing of the introduction of the Bill.
It may well be—I acquit the former Attorney-General, who says that he does not know—that the other two right hon. Gentlemen opposite are misleading the House, but they have let out the Government. They have said that they did not think there was any commitment, certainly for this Session. So why do not we say "Done" right away? If that is the recollection of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, why should we be more loyal than the king?
There is, however, another sense in which the situation has changed. If it was the understanding of the present Government that there had been a firm commitment and it was the understanding of those on the benches opposite who formerly were responsible for these matters that there was no firm commitment, and if we who are listening to the debate, who are hearing for the first time whether there was a commitment and who are being invited to cast our votes on the claim that there was a commitment, subsequently discover that there was not a commitment in the understanding of the former Government, a new situation is created.
There are second grounds on which there is a new situation. Many hon. Members thought that this Measure—and, indeed, at the time of the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral it was thought that this Measure—was at least supported by all hon. Members opposite. We have, however discovered during the debate that quite a number of hon. Members opposite disagree strongly with the Bill. Nobody would dispute that the whole of this side of the House, despite the speech of one of my hon. Friends, is strongly critical of the Bill. Not one speech from this side has given full support to the


Bill. Even my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar, who came nearest to that position, had some criticisms. All other hon. Members who have spoken from this side of the House are opposed to the Bill in different degrees of strength. That is an extremely serious situation, and it is one of which the Government should take note. They should be guided by what has occurred.

Sir D. Glover: And the hon. Member?

Mr. Foot: I am coming to that.
I am a member of the Select Committee on Procedure, as I have been at pains to remind one or two hon. Members on previous occasions. One of the changes in procedure I have always advocated and which I continue to advocate is that Governments ought to listen to what is said on the Floor of the House of Commons. This is one of the ways in which I think we can restore the authority of the House of Commons. Many of the measures advocated by some of my hon. Friends for restoring the authority of the House I disagree with, because I think they would have exactly the opposite effect.
I do not think it is dishonourable—indeed, I think it would be highly creditable—in a Minister who has introduced a Measure in good faith to listen to the debate upon it, to listen in particular to his hon. Friend who had difficulties about it, and at the end to say, "I take full note of all that has been said and I propose to report it to the other members of the Government to see if their views are altered because of the representations made on the Floor of the House of Commons". There is nothing wrong in that. That is what the House of Commons is for.

Sir D. Glover: The Leader of the House.

Mr. Foot: The Attorney-General is perfectly capable of doing it. He could come to the Dispatch Box now and say that, in view of the very strong representations which have been made, and in view of the fact that there appears to be a difference of interpretation—I put it no stronger than that—between the two sides as to what was the commitment, he proposes to report the matter back to the Government. He should do that before

he presses the matter to a Division. He could do that. I know it has not been frequently done in recent times, but it has been done by Governments previously, and that is the way the House of Commons should operate. The House ought to have the capacity to make an impact on Administrations.
If the Attorney-General does not feel he is able to do that he can at any rate say that he is altering his view about the urgency of this Measure's going through in this Session. There is no necessity which has been described to us for its going through in this Session, except the commitment, which is a commitment questioned by the other side of the House. In any case, there are no grounds on which it can be argued that it is urgent in that sense, since it does not come into operation till April. There is plenty of time to reconsider it.
We have had in connection with other Bills, introduced in this Session, White Papers first, and we have discussed the White Papers instead of taking the Bills. There could have been a White Paper about this Bill, and I do not think we should have had the Bill had we had a White Paper about it first. We have also had the postponement of certain Measures which were mentioned in the Queen's Speech—very important Measures, such as the one about leasehold reform. I gather that that has been postponed to another Session or that it may be postponed to another Session; I am not sure; but it was in the Queen's Speech. There are other Measures which have been postponed. I am not complaining. I know that Governments get into legislative jams. But this Bill has been inserted in the midst of a legislative jam.
So I say, for all these reasons, that there are good grounds, in the proper conduct of the House of Commons, why the Attorney-General should take very serious note of what has been said. I do not think he can be under any misapprehension of how profound and strong is the feeling of hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House against the Bill—very strong indeed. So I hope he will take that into account in the reply he makes now, or in the recommendations which he makes to the Cabinet following this debate, or in deciding


whether to proceed with the Bill in Committee in this Session or not. He has three different courses open to him by which he can recognise the strength of feeling on this side.
I say to him, and to other members of the Government who are present, that it is not only a question of this Bill. If they show recognition of the feelings of the House, genuinely represented to them, and of the feelings of this side of the House, genuinely represented to them, it will assist them greatly in all their future plans and in the difficulties which they may have with the House. But if they adopt a rigid attitude and say, "Once we have put down a Measure for Second Reading we are going to take no notice whatever of the most powerful feelings put forward from these back benches", they will be heading for difficulties.
The Government should consider very carefully what has been said, and if they find, as I hope they will, that there are different ways in which they can postpone this matter to another Session so that we can examine it much more carefully, if they find it a bit awkward that they have to go to the judges and say, "You have to wait a little longer", I have another solution which I recommend to them. They can say to the judges, "In the meantime, your lordships, we propose that your wage claims should be referred to Mr. Aubrey Jones' Prices and Incomes Committee, and we will see if that Committee can report as quickly as it has done in some other cases. We are sure that the Committee will look into your claims as eagerly as it has done into some others".
The Government cannot say that I have not made a whole series of constructive suggestions. I have pointed to a whole series of ways in which they can escape from the dilemma into which they should never have got themselves.

2.31 a.m.

The Attorney-General: I should like first to deal—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Samuel Storey): Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must ask for the leave of the House before he speaks again.

The Attorney-General: I apologise, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I was encouraged by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw

Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) to think that the leave of the House is granted in anticipation, and I ask leave to speak again.

Mr. David Steel: On a point of order. I have been waiting to speak and have been hoping to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. If we give the Attorney-General leave to speak again, I hope that it will not preclude us from continuing the debate.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It does not affect the position at all.

The Attorney-General: I should like, first, to deal with what I can only designate as squalid inconsistency on the part of the right hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Noble) and the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) who, shortly after making his speech, left the House. The squalid inconsistency to which I am referring is the inconsistency between the quite clear and specific undertaking and commitment which the then Government—and they were Members of the Cabinet of that Government—gave in regard to this matter, and what has been argued tonight.
I should like the House to know in what terms this undertaking was expressed. It arose in another place on 24th March of last year in the following circumstances: The noble Lord, Lord Alport asked the then Lord Chancellor to ask Her Majesty's Government
whether they are aware that the Supreme Court Judges in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland have had no increase in their salaries since 1954, while those of the lower judiciary have been increased on three, and in some cases four, occasions since that date; and whether Her Majesty's Government will take the necessary action to increase these salaries.
In reply, the Lord Chancellor, Lord Dilhorne, said:
My Lords, the answer is, Yes. It is the Government's intention to introduce next Session legislation to provide for increases in the remuneration of the Superior Judiciary."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 24th March, 1964; Vol. 256, c. 1130.]
That commitment was clear and express, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman: Was not he then a Member of the Cabinet? Was not this a Cabinet decision? Are we to understand that it was not intended; that this was a sheer piece of deception and delay because the previous


Administration was afraid to introduce an unpopular Measure? I charge the right hon. Gentleman with gross and sordid inconsistency in this matter.

Mr. Noble: It is possible for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to charge me with anything that he likes, but his own Government have on many occasions in the last six or nine months announced their intention to do something and then have not done it.

The Attorney-General: Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman has no sense of honour in these matters—no sense of the moral and political meaning of a commitment of this kind? The judges in the higher judiciary were most expressly told this in the answer of the Lord Chancellor. There was a clear commitment on the part of the then Government to the judiciary in March 1964. Now this Government are honouring that comment at the latest point of time. I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman finds this so laughable a matter. His good faith is directly involved in this, in the way in which he and his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral have repeated the kind of performance to which we were subjected in relation to the War Damage Bill, when that same right hon. and learned Gentleman was the Member of a Government which sent a letter to the Burmah Oil Company at the beginning of the litigation saying, "If you go on we shall bring in a Bill to stop you recovering any damages in the litigation." In spite of that dramatic and highly criticised intervention, when the time came for putting this Measure through the House once again there was a ratting and running away from a clear political commitment.

Sir J. Hobson: There must be a misunderstanding in relation to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd). [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] I understood him to say—and I am supporting the Bill; I have waited here in order to vote for it—that the Lord Chancellor had given an undertaking to the House of Lords in March. He mentioned it expressly, and never went away from it. I understood that the point of dispute was a matter on which I am not informed

—whether there was an agreement between the two sides of the House, or a pledge on behalf of both parties, which is different from the pledge actually given by the previous Lord Chancellor.
I hope that the Attorney-General is not misunderstanding the position in making this attack upon my right hon. and learned Friend. My right hon. and learned Friend said that the former Lord Chancellor had given that undertaking in the Lords on 24th March. I agree that there was an express undertaking by the previous Government to introduce legislation in the next Session, but that is a different question from the question whether the present Government were bound by the pledge then given by the House of Lords, and a different question, again, from the question whether there was any agreement between the previous Government and the Opposition, as it then was, as to this Measure. These are three different questions, and we should make it clear that the attack made by the Attorney-General upon my right hon. and learned Friend is not warranted, because he did speak about the pledge.

The Attorney-General: I was criticised about the length of my opening speech, but if the interventions in the speech that I am now making are as long as that just made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman this speech will be interminable.
I will remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman of what the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral said. He attacked the timing of this Measure. What does that mean? This is the very end of the Session in which his Government undertook, if they had been in power—which, thank Heaven, they are not—to introduce a Bill. I have not gathered that the quantum of the increase either in pay or in numbers is challenged. The right hon. and learned Gentleman attacked the Government for the timing of this Measure. What is the timing of it? This is almost the last moment when the Bill could be introduced in order for it to be passed this Session. In attacking the Government in that way the right hon. and learned Gentleman—I am sorry to make this attack in his absence, but it is not my fault that he is not here—was seeking to gain political advantage, and once more demonstrating the fact that we have


met so many times since this Government came to office, namely, that we have had to do some of the dirty work that the party opposite should have done. Agreeing that the position of the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral was slightly different, I repeat that the right hon. Member for Argyll certainly attacked the timing and the contents of the Bill, a Measure which his own Government had undertaken to introduce.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: rose—

The Attorney-General: Perhaps I ought to get on—

Mr. Lewis: Was there an agreement between the two sides?

The Attorney-General: I will, very shortly, deal with—

Dame Irene Ward: Answer the question.

Mr. J. J. Mendelson: Before my right hon. and learned Friend leaves this crucial point—he has clearly explained that there was an announcement by the previous Administration which could be regarded as binding on that Administration. What he has not yet explained, and what is far more important for me and my hon. Friends on this side of the House, is this: what is the commitment he believes binds his Administration to carry out what he called the "dirty work" of the previous Government?

The Attorney-General: I was not a member of the shadow cabinet at the time. It is true that an undertaking by the Government of the day to the judges is a highly relevant consideration, to which any successive Government has to give immense and important weight. That is a factor which must, clearly, operate in the minds of any successive Government if they are to have any reputation for decency. Apart from the background of that specific undertaking, the Government take the view that, upon the merits of this matter, this Bill is justified in present circumstances.
I have said, and I repeat it without apology or reservation, that the Bill does not constitute, in any sense, an infringement of the Government's incomes policy. Of course, I understand my hon. Friends' anxieties about the difficult conditions

and circumstances of those receiving still inadequate wages and pensions in spite of the efforts of the Government. But I hope that those who have been critical will point out that what is involved in the Bill, which, on the face of it, looks like a dramatic advance of 25 per cent., has arisen only by reason of the special circumstances of this group of salary earners, the judges. I know, because they are hon. Friends of mine, that they will honestly tell their constituents—as I shall tell mine—that what is involved here is an increase of slightly less than two per cent.—1·9 per cent.—in the course of the last twelve years, that and no more.
That constitutes no infringement of the guiding light principle of 3½ per cent. This impression of a major rise has been created only because, in this class of salary earners alone, increments from time to time—as has happened with county court judges, and civil servants—have not taken place merely because of this constitutional machinery, because up till now, judges' salaries have been controlled by Act of Parliament. If these increments had been made one at a time over the past eleven years, we should have heard absolutely nothing about it. The reason that this unhappy situation has come to pass is, as I said in opening the debate, that the special position of the judges has resulted in them alone of all salary earners in the country not getting a penny of increment between 1954 and today.
The fact must be faced that, if we are to maintain an independent judiciary, it is, under the present arrangements, essential that the best of the Bar should be recruited for the Bench. All I can say is that my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor, who perhaps has even more knowledge of these matters by reason of the fact that he has to deal with them in making judicial appointments, has told me, and I have little doubt that he will say so in another place, that we have reached a situation where the present emoluments of £8,000 a year are not ensuring that the best of the Bar are interested any longer in going on the High Court Bench.
That is the fact. A lot of this debate has been about equality, and I am passionately concerned about equality, because socialism is about equality. One of the things that Labour have done, in


every administration, is to make major advances towards equality, and we shall continue to do so. But it will take time, and we have only been in office for eight months.
Then my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) made a passionate speech. I much admire his reforming zeal, but does he think that the Lord Chancellor has lost all of his? For the first time this country has a permanent Law Commission in existence whose sole task is to keep the law under review, to reform it and bring it up to date. It is the greatest advance in law reform for hundreds of years, and the Government have accomplished it within nine months of taking office. I do ask my hon. Friends to give us credit for something in their zeal for reform. Turning to the other matters that my hon. Friend raised, he must know that the questions he has referred to me and my hon. Friends are being actively investigated and considered.
The suggestions that have been made in this debate by the hon. and learned Members for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) and Bebington (Mr. Howe) and others about the law's delays will be looked into. But it is not long ago since we had the Streatfeild Committee Report. As a result of that, there was a major overhaul of the administrative arrangements for the courts, and the consequence has been that the period between a man being charged and being tried is today less than it has ever been in our history over the country as a whole. We have made considerable progress in reducing the law's delays. It is true that in the civil field there is beginning to be a build-up. That is why we want more judges, and that is the justification for Clause 3 of the Bill.
In the view of the Government, the Bill is an essential measure. We deem it to be necessary for the proper administration of our justice that the Bill shall be introduced, and we are not afraid of introducing a measure which, although on the face of it it will be an unpopular and perhaps unpalatable one, when the true facts are known I am confident that the people will understand. They must realise that a price has to be paid for an independent judiciary attracting the best legal skills, and we are in danger of paying some lip service to a Bench of high quality but

failing to provide with it the means to maintain its standards.

2.48 a.m.

Mr. David Steel: I am certainly convinced of the merits of the Bill and, because of those merits, I shall vote for it. What I am not convinced of is that a pledge given by a different Administration in different economic circumstances is in some way binding in the circumstances of today. Nevertheless, the Bill is before the House and, on this occasion, I shall vote for it. But I should not lose any sleep at all if it never got any further in this Session.
Government is surely about priorities and, like many other hon. Members, I hold clinics regularly in my constituency. The greatest number of cases I had are those of public servants and old age pensioners. I have judges living in my constituency, but I have never had a judge come to see me about an increase in salary. While I do not doubt the merits of the Bill, and although I accept all the cogent arguments advanced in its support, I think that perhaps this is not a priority in the Government's legislative programme.
I wish primarily to raise a quite different matter which has not been discussed. I should, in passing, say that I hope that a reply will be given to the points raised by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentland (Mr. Wylie) about why there is no increase proposed in the number of Scottish judges.

The Attorney-General: I always hesitate to deal with matters regarding the administration of the law in Scotland. But there is already a spare judge in the Scottish legal arrangements. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am not expressing myself very clearly. There is an establishment for one more judge under the Scottish provisions, and it is thought that that is adequate to meet with the reasonably foreseeable needs in Scotland.

Mr. Steel: There is a log jam in litigation in Scotland, and I hope that if there is a spare judge he will be brought into use.
The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. Hendry) asked why there was a wide discrepancy between the remuneration for judges in England and Scotland.


I thought that the Labour Party believed in equal pay for equal work. I find this differentiation rather strange.
The main point which I wish to raise is this. We are being asked to vote for an increase in salary for, among others, the Lord President of the Court of Session, the Lord Justice Clerk and the other ordinary judges of the Court of Session. It is right that in considering an increase in salary for these judges we should consider who they are and how they are appointed. I am not satisfied with the way in which they are appointed now and have been appointed in the past. Hon. Members who do not represent Scottish constituencies would, perhaps, like to know about this matter very briefly.
The Lord Advocate in Scotland is a Minister of the Crown and is appointed by the Prime Minister. He, in consultation with the Secretary of State for Scotland, then appoints the judges, and among those whom he appoints is invariably himself. More important, he can wait until one of the two top offices in the Court of Session falls vacant and then appoint himself to it. At present both offices are occupied by former Members of Parliament, former Lords Advocate. The result is that it is not often easy for people in the legal profession in Scotland who have not gone through the political ladder to reach the top jobs, however great their merit.

Mr. A. Woodburn: It is not correct to say that the Lord Advocate can appoint himself. The Lord Advocate does not appoint the judges in Scotland. They are appointed by the Prime Minister on the advice of the Secretary of State for Scotland and by the Crown.

Mr. Steel: I accept that what the right hon. Gentleman says is technically correct. We all know that the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland do not themselves make the decision. The decision is obviously made on the recommendation of the Lord Advocate. I was cutting short the story. Nevertheless, it is true, and the right hon. Gentleman will accept, that Lords Advocate invariably hold these positions. The system of political appointments to judicial positions has been used consistently by both parties when in government, and it is bad and should be

changed. When we are taking the opportunity to provide for increases in salary, I hope that we can have some assurance that the system of appointment may be changed.
When Lord Cockburn's Memorials were reviewed in the Edinburgh Review it was said that they were
an illuminated catalogue of past abuses too preposterous to be believed if they had not been almost too inveterate to be conquered".
Among the abuses attacked by Lord Cockburn was political appointments to judicial positions. The political bias in judicial appointments is still preposterous and even more inveterate, and I hope that this Government will conquer it.

2.54 a.m.

Mr. J. J. Mendelson: The debate which we are about to conclude has shown two important things which should not be lost upon the Government. The first is that it would be much wiser in future, when Bills involving important principles are about to be introduced, to have consultations at an early stage at which the principles of such legislation can be fully discussed.
The second conclusion is that it is good to listen to the House of Commons. The Government are now in the position where they have put themselves in disagreement with considerable numbers of their supporters. They know that the views which have been expressed by many Members on this side tonight are representative of the views which are held by thousands and thousands and supporters of the Labour movement outside the House. They know the sincerity with which many Members who have advocated the Government's general incomes policy all over the country have put forward their views.
The Attorney-General's answer has left major points unanswered. There has been no real clearing up of the essential point about the commitment, which was one of the major parts of his case. There has been no answer about the necessity of going on with a Measure which the other side might have announced in their own way in a half-hearted fashion. There is no possibility of going any further on this important matter tonight, but the Government would be mistaking the temper of many of their own supporters and that of many people who have


watched these events in the country, and in the trade union movement in particular, if they were to make light of the views which have been expressed tonight.
I myself believe that the purpose both of Parliament and of the work of the Government and the work of the Labour movement and the Labour Party in the House would be best served if no Division whatsoever in a formal sense were recorded tonight. It would represent the point of view of those who send us here and I believe that it would be the most dignified and effective way of concluding this discussion.
I make this final appeal to the Government. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) has indicated, even after tonight, when there might have been particular reasons why the Attorney-General could not give a commitment to do something about the Bill, there are further constitutional opportunities at the Government's disposal and they ought to interpret the temper of this debate in the way my hon. Friend has urged. With that in mind, I would like to ask my right hon. and hon. Friends who are particularly concerned with this to take note of this debate, and I repeat my suggestion that the best way to conclude the debate is to have no Division.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Howie.]

Committee this day.

Orders of the Day — JUDGES' REMUNERATION [MONEY]

[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 88 (Money Committees.)

[Dr. HORACE KING in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of this Session to increase the salaries attached to certain high judicial offices, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of—

(a) the salaries payable under that Act to the Lord Chancellor and the holders of other high judicial offices; and
(b) any increase in the sums payable out of that Fund under any other enactment which is attributable to provisions of that Act relating to such salaries, increasing the rate of the Lord Chancellor's pension or providing for the appointment of additional judges of the High Court in England.—[Mr. MacDermot.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received this day.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (SEVERN BRIDGE TOLLS BILL)

Ordered,
That the Third Reading of the Severn Bridge Tolls Bill may be taken immediately after the consideration of the Bill, as amended, notwithstanding the practice of this House as to the interval between the stages of such a Bill.—[Mr. Howie.]

Orders of the Day — ARMED FORCES PENSIONERS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Howie.]

3.1 a.m.

Mr. Dennis Hobden: It was my original intention to speak on the need for an early increase in Public Service pensions but, owing to the rules of procedure governing the subject, I am unable to speak on the general question of increasing public service pensions as it would be ruled out of order because it involves legislation. I understand that I can speak on the question of increasing the pensions of ex-members of the Armed Forces because that can be carried out by Royal Warrant and does not involve legislation. In these circumstances I shall confine my remarks to that category, and I am sorry to say that this has meant a disappointment to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) who had asked me to raise the question of teachers' pensions.
Whilst in the course of my remarks I may make quotations from statements made about public service pensions as a whole, I shall do so only to show their relevance and application to Armed Forces pensioners. In other words, I am forced to mention the general question in order to arrive at the particular.
The undertaking which we gave at the General Election was that
Pensions will be linked to earnings. This link will mean that pensioners are not only compensated for rising prices but also receive their full and fair share in rising national prosperity.
At the same time, when various pensioners' organisations inquired about our proposals on pensions, we informed them that we were
favourably disposed towards the principle of parity
that is to say, the same pensions for the same service regardless of the date of retirement. We promised that we would open negotiations with interested bodies to see how reforms along these lines could be introduced.
The Prime Minister is on record as saying that
Pensions will be reviewed so that they will keep their full purchasing power instead of

being eroded as they have been in recent years.
When we are considering the pensions of Armed Forces pensioners we are also considering a category of pensioner who normally retired at an earlier age than the majority of other pensioners. They have therefore suffered from the effects of inflation for many more years than have the ordinary pensioners who normally cannot retire before the age of 60 years.
An examination of the statistics governing retired officers shows that 16 per cent. were retired on 1919 rates of retirement pay and a further 45 per cent. were retired on rates fixed in 1945 or earlier. Ratings and other ranks are in a similar position and many of them are receiving less than half the pensions paid to those who retire today.
We must not forget also that their widows' pensions are based on the same obsolete rates, and many are in receipt of National Assistance and are among the poorest in the land. In the journal of the Officers' Pension Society there is a table giving comparative information about widows' pensions, and it is shown that eight countries have better widows' pensions than we do and in most cases the pension is nearly double what we pay to the widows of our Forces pensioners. Only Finland is below our level. Moreover, the widows of other ranks, other than warrant officers Class I, who were discharged before September, 1950, receive no pension at all
The present pensions increase system, which has remained practically unchanged for 45 years, has resulted in all Forces pensioners having continually to lower their standard of life, and those who live in retirement the longest receive the least upon which to live when they are old and least able to help themselves. As is said in an appendix on Armed Forces pensions in the book, "Public Sector Pensions", by Gerald Rhodes, Service pensions differ from the normal pattern of civilian public sector schemes in not being directly related to pay at the time of retirement. Thus, increases in pay do not automatically lead to increases in prospective pension, as happens in terminal salary schemes. When, therefore, because of inflation or for some other cause, a change in pension rates is thought desirable, a new scale or code is drawn up in place of the existing one. Hence, at


any one time there may be several codes in existence and the pension received by any individual pensioner will depend on the code in force at the time he retired. In this connection, it should not be forgotten that members of the women's Services are paid less and receive smaller pensions than men.
A pension, like a salary or wage, is income. Since the last increase under the Royal Warrant, incomes have risen inside and outside the Armed Forces, but Armed Forces pensioners have remained pegged to the position determined by that last Royal Warrant in, I think, 1962. Therefore, those whose pensions have been based on out of date wage and salary scales have no means of combating increases in rents, rates, taxes, food prices, fares and other necessities of life, let alone in the cost of small luxuries which make life easier.
A pension for a member of the Armed Forces is an income based upon service. Those still serving in the Armed Forces have their incomes related to the present value of the £, and those who retire now at least have the advantage of a pension based upon current standards. Why, then, should former members of the Armed Forces, with length and level of service similar to those who retire today, be restricted to a pension related to out of date salary and wage rates? The most recent Royal Warrant improving Armed Forces pensions still gave in cash, though higher in percentage, the smallest increases to the oldest and least well provided for. In the last 12 months, the Index of Retail Prices has moved up over 8 points.
Other countries are aware of the need for urgent action. In the United States, retired pay is increased automatically with increases in active pay, while in France, Belgium, West Germany, Italy, Holland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Spain retired pay goes up with the cost of living. It appears from this that there is now wider recognition of the need to eliminate the suffering caused by a system which freezes pensions at their original paper value plus any percentage increases that may from time to time be made. Pensions should in all justice be increased in proportion year by year. Even if one retired on the 1960 Code it would be necessary to increase the award by no

less than 10·5 per cent. in order for it to be comparable with the 1964 Code.
I know from the volume of mail I receive on the subject that the question of Forces pensions and public service pensions is uppermost in the minds of many of my constituents. The position throughout the country is rather bleak, but Brighton has a high percentage of retired people. They live in an area of abnormally high rates and they have also been affected by increases in mortgage rates and the price of food. So far they have not been able to benefit from any concession by way of cheap bus fares, although many live in the suburbs.
Behind the respectable front room curtains of many smart homes there is a story of suffering and hardship. It is no answer to say that many can qualify for National Assistance. Rightly or wrongly, these are people to whom that proposition is repugnant. They are not asking for charity and in any case if the money is there for National Assistance it must be made available for an increase in pensions. They are asking for compensation to which they are entitled.
Since last October many hon. Members on both sides have been concerned about this position. Numerous Questions have been put down and we are informed that we must await the outcome of a review which is independent of the review of social security benefits generally. I am aware that the country has many acute financial problems and that if the principle of parity were conceded for all public service pensioners it would cost £100 million a year. Nevertheless the time is running out for these people. They are in the evening of their lives. Time is not on their side and in all conscience, I believe that within eight months we should at least be able to state our proposals about these pensions.
The time is coming when the public will make an outcry because a considerable section of the population is not getting a fair crack of the whip, and that outcry will transcend party politics. I would like the Government to concede the principle of parity even if it may mean introducing it in stages over a number of years.
I said at the outset that I would be speaking purely on the question of increased pensions for ex-members of the


Forces. Nothing I have said can hide the fact—and over 160 signatures to Early Day Motion No. 220 supports it—that the remarks I have made about Forces pensions apply equally to all public service pensions and the Government should do all in their power to look at the question as a whole, particularly having regard to the urgency of the situation.

3.13 a.m.

Dame Irene Ward: I support the case put by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Hobden). As I am sure he is aware, for a very long time I have tried to do all in my power in Parliament to forward the cause not only of Forces pensioners but of all public service pensioners as well. Quite apart from the need to make some very real improvement in the pensions payable at present, I want to register in particular my view that the whole system operating in relation to these groups of people really does require overhauling and a more modern approach made.
It is completely right, as the hon. Gentleman said, that those who retired years ago, and especially their widows, are worse off.
I fully recognise that the arrangements for pensions and retired pay were improved by the Government which I supported before the General Election, but much of the improvement was to attract men and women into the Services, in itself a satisfactory objective. But it is not right that this country, which has been devotedly served by public servants and members of the Armed Forces, should leave those who did valiant and reliable service in the condition in which many now find themselves.
Like the hon. Gentleman, I represent a constituency with a higher than average proportion of retired people, and I know how strongly they feel. I think that it was the last occasion of a Pensions (Increase) Act when a higher percentage increase was given to those who had retired earlier: but a 12½ per cent. increase to someone getting a low basic amount makes for a smaller increase than a lower percentage increase of a greater basic pension. Therefore, although the new scheme had a very good objective, it failed badly.
I hope that the Minister will tell us that we can look forward to a redemption of the pledge made by his party at the General Election and that, with the full agreement of the House, we are to have legislation so that there will no longer be long delays before we have modern pensions increases legislation, which is vitally important.
I wish the hon. Gentleman well. I am delighted that he has thought of bringing forward this subject. I read the pledge given to the Officers' Pension Society about officers, their dependants and those of other ranks, but I do not recollect anything being said about waiting for a review. I understand about the other review, but although I was naturally questioned about this subject, as was my Labour opponent, I do not remember my opponent saying that the redemption of the pledge would have to await a review. I hope that we shall be told about the pensions for the Armed Forces and especially about widows' pensions and that we shall not be told that we have to await a review. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman, and I am delighted to be associated with him and hope that we are to hear good news for all pensioners, but especially for those who have served in the Armed Forces.

3.19 a.m.

The Minister of Defence for the Royal Navy (Mr. Christopher Mayhew): Public service pensioners should be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Hobden) for raising their case in this debate and for doing so so persuasively. I am sure that they will not be surprised that at this debate, even at this unusual hour, the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) should be at her station again to carry out the task which she has performed before and also stating her strongly held views on this subject.
At the same time I think that neither of the two hon. Members who remain in their seats now seriously expects from me a far-reaching statement on Government policy on this extremely important subject. I noticed with a particular personal interest that my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown referred to the unusually large number of public service pensioners he counts among his constituents in Brighton. As it happens,


some of these constituents are well known to my wife and myself. He may not know that during the election, by helping with postal votes and transport, we claim to have contributed at least five pensioner's votes to my hon. Friend's slender majority of seven. I hope, therefore, that he will recognise that I, like him, understand that many of his constituents and many people throughout the country regard this as a vitally important subject.
I have the greatest sympathy with a great deal of what my hon. Friend has said. He has chosen a subject of very great concern to a very large number of people, not only in the Armed Forces but throughout the country. I can only regret that his Motion has come at a time when the Government's general review on public service pensions, which includes the Armed Forces pensions, which I distinguish from the long term review on the social security measures, which is also under way, is still in progress. I will not be able to tell him tonight anything which can be regarded as news.
Pensions today are paid under a number of codes, dating from 1919, and running to 1945, 1950, 1956, 1959, 1960, 1962 and 1964. The basic rates paid under these codes partly reflect increases in real terms in active service pay, and the increases in successive codes provide some measure of the improvements which have been made in Service pay in recent years to match the rate of increase in wages and salaries in civilian life. The years since 1945 and even more since 1919 have seen a steady fall in the purchasing power of money, as well as increases in the real value of wages and salaries. The rates of pension paid under the earlier codes have been adjusted at intervals on this account. There have been pensions increase measures for public service pensioners generally in 1944, 1947, 1952 and 1956, 1959 and 1962.
The increases applied in general to those over 60 or the incapacitated, or widows. The object of these measures was to alleviate hardship caused by progressive increases in the cost of living, and the measures do not all work in the same fashion. The measures of 1944, 1947 and 1956 gave larger proportionate increases to those with smaller pensions

than to those with larger pensions. The later acts of 1959 and 1962 gave uniform percentage increases, but distinguished between different codes. For instance, the broad basis of the 1962 measure was to give 12 per cent. to those on the 1956 and earlier codes, 6 per cent. to ratings and other ranks on the 1959 code and 4 per cent. to those on the 1960 code.
May I take up a point which my hon. Friend made? He reminded me of statements made during the General Election about the relation of pensions to the cost of living. I do not think that he meant to suggest that the Government had fallen down on their undertaking or were likely to do so. This, with respect, would be to jump to conclusions against the evidence. Ever since they came to office, the Government have shown that they have a very lively sense of obligation towards pensioners in general, as witnessed by the increase in the National Insurance pension, which applies to the great mass of pensioners, including most of those drawing Armed Forces pensions.
My hon. Friend asked about the maintenance of the real value of Armed Service pensions. Our review is still in progress, and it is too soon for anyone to draw conclusions about the outcome. As a result of past pensions increase Measures, the basic rates of pension have been increased, but some relativities have been disturbed in the process. We have to consider two large general questions. First, is there a case for another pensions increase; and, secondly, if so, is there any means of ironing out the disparities which have crept in?
The case for pensions increases in the past depended on a substantial movement in the retail price index. Hon. Members need no reminding from me that there has been a pretty sizeable increase since the introduction of the last Measure in January, 1963.
But this is not the whole story. Over 85 per cent. of the Armed Service pensioners are or will become eligible for the National Insurance retirement pension as well as their Service pension, and one of the Government's first acts was to raise these National Insurance benefits. Since January 1963 the cost of living has gone up by just over 10 per cent. but during the same period there have been two increases in National Insurance pensions—of 10s., which is 17½ per cent.,


on 27th May, 1963, and of 12s. 6d., which is 18½ per cent., on 28th March, 1965. These increases are for single persons, and the increases in the married rate have been bigger. The increases in March this year were the largest ever.
If we take the increase in the total pension income of those who get the Armed Forces pension and the National Insurance pension combined and compare it with the cost of living since the pensions were awarded, the comparison shows up in better light for the pensioner.
My hon. Friend said that in the United States retired pay goes up with active pay and that in France and most other Western European countries, there are similar benefits for Armed Service pensioners. It is only right to point out that in one way or another none of those countries allows Armed Forces pensioners to draw the old age pension in addition to the Service pension.
Although I cannot accept all my hon. Friend's arguments, I do not want to give the wrong impression. The case which he has presented for an increase in the Armed Forces pensions is strong, and nothing that I have said should be taken to imply that the Government deny that such a case exists. Supposing, then, that we find as a result of our review that a case is made out for a pensions increase. The second main question which arises is whether we ought not to try to iron out some of the disparities which have arisen. The alternative to trying to iron out the disparities in a number of rather elaborate ways is one which has often been canvassed—the principle of parity, the granting of pensions to all who retired under earlier codes on an equal basis, rank for rank and service for service, with those retiring under the current code.
As I have said on previous occasions in the House, parity has big advantages but it also suffers from several important disadvantages, not the least being the cost. The immediate cost of parity on the modern code for Armed Forces pensioners would be something like £25 million. The cost of parity for the whole

public service would, as my hon. Friend has said, be over £100 million. It could, of course, be introduced in stages, but the national economy would soon feel the weight of the ultimate commitment. In the private sector and nationalised industries, a commitment to parity might involve a cost of £1,000 million.
I am sorry not to have been able tonight to give my hon. Friend any positive statement on future Government policy in this matter, but I hope that, at least, he will draw one or two conclusions from what I have said. The first is that we fully realise and respect the importance of the subject and the strength of the views of all those, including the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton, who have constantly pressed the case of the Armed Forces pensioner.
The second conclusion which, I hope, my hon. Friend has drawn is that the subject is a difficult one, both in complexity and in the cost of possible improvements and that, therefore, we have not yet been able to come to conclusions on it. Thirdly, we have, nevertheless, given it detailed consideration so that when a decision is reached, all those concerned will know that it has been taken with full knowledge and full appreciation of everything that is involved.

Dame Irene Ward: In thanking the Minister for what he has said, may I ask whether he can give the number of Armed Forces pensioners who are not able to qualify for and draw National Insurance pensions? This makes an important distinction between the two sections.

Mr. Mayhew: Most Armed Service pensioners who retire fairly early get work and thus become insured—

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Wednesday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-nine minutes to Four o'clock a.m.